Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on October 08, 2011, 10:52:56 am
-
First thing's first: I am not trying to offend anybody.
I've been turning this idea over and over in my head for a while now. I've been wondering if it is possible that those people who claim to either
a) Have seen angels
b) Have communicated with angels/God, or
c) Have communicated with the dead
are all schizophrenic?
I am not trying to offend anybody, and I am not trying to attack religion. I'm not saying I don't believe in God or Heaven or Hell, because I do. I think. Just to a much lesser degree than a lot of people.
I'm just wondering if this is plausible.
Yes, I realize this is a very dangerous question.
-
First of all, "schizophrenia" covers a wide array of possible symptoms.
Second, no, not everyone has to be schizophrenic in order to be able to claim this stuff. Being addicted to publicity is also a valid cause. Or wanting to make money.
Third, the human mind is susceptible to failure modes where unconnected events will be counted as part of a pattern, creating the illusion of something supernatural at work (see also: ghosts).
Fourth, there may even be a chance of these things being real. I don't believe they are; but discounting stuff like that would be unscientific. But, as the JREF challenge has still failed to produce a winner, I would say that the odds for this whole thing being bull**** are pretty high.
-
I will claim option B.
I'm definitely not schizophrenic. I'm also not offended. That is the logical conclusion of your worldview. No other conclusion explains enough using your assumptions.
Best evidence I can give you to the contrary that people are delusional is that when people who pray for direction confer with one another after, they usually report the same answer. This happens many times over long periods of time, the exceptions being when one person has neglected to spend time meditating on who God is and praying. When that happens and they confer, everyone (usually including the person who has not been spending time with God) knows why there is disagreement.
When there is a lack of direction at all, we know that it is because we are working out of an incorrect assumption, because that has shown to be the case afterward, consistently.
For example (this actually happened), we ask for direction on how to lead a bible study a week from that day, we hear nothing. We have been assuming that that bible study was supposed to take place, needs to be led and that something would come of it. The time comes and no one but the leaders show up, and even then, one of the three leaders does not show up. It's plain to see why we did not get an answer: we were not working out of the right assumptions.
Also, hearing the voice of God is not like hearing an actual voice in English, it's closer to being compelled into action, itself. A voice we could ignore, we could argue with, we could even manipulate so that something we want could easily be ours. No, there are times where I am compelled to act. Every time I've fought the urge to act (or not act), and succeed, it has turned out worse for me.
One night I was compelled not to go to a gathering, but I brushed it off because I really wanted to go. I really loved the people who would be there, and I really loved what it was about. It was about half an hour away, and it was raining, and I had to take the highway to go. Long story short, I got into my first car accident, lost my car, and ended up failing all my classes that semester because I couldn't get to class anymore.
It's not punishment, because he was trying to keep me from it. He just knew what was going to happen and tried to keep it from me.
That's what I got for not being a schizo. Take it or leave it.
Second, no, not everyone has to be schizophrenic in order to be able to claim this stuff. Being addicted to publicity is also a valid cause. Or wanting to make money.
We both know that they exist. People addicted to publicity and people wanting to make money will both happen. Joel Olsteen is probably an example.
But there are counter-examples, Mother Teresa, the most obvious of them. Generally, if you want to tell between the two, look at how humble they are. Define humility as this: wanting to build up others, and willing to submit to where they are being led. And you will be able to tell because when you hear a proud person preach, you want to throw up. When you hear a humble man preach, it's like being cut and yet knowing what should be done.
Fourth, there may even be a chance of these things being real. I don't believe they are; but discounting stuff like that would be unscientific.
Thank you for saying that. It means a lot. Some people would just say something to the effect of anything supernatural is impossible because you can't test it. It's a little frustrating.
But, as the JREF challenge has still failed to produce a winner, I would say that the odds for this whole thing being bull**** are pretty high.
You win some, you lose some. :lol:
Edit: Various corrections/additions/subtractions for clarity's sake.
-
Human brains are pattern recognizing heuristic supercomputers (EDIT: But ones with a fairly high false positive rate.) If you look for Jesus in your toast / a sign from God / angels on high / etc. you will find them. That doesn't make you crazy, it makes you misguided.
-
I like to think that all of the so-called "supernatural" events, and actually even things like schizophrenia and autism (usually described as a sort of sensory overload) can all be explained without resorting to handwaving.
My current theory is that our universe is closely intertwined with all of the other realities in the multiverse, and that sometimes, we can catch glimpses of our place in the multiverse. Ghosts, angels, whatever, what if we're just seeing through to some other universe? I have an extremely extensive theory but it's TL;DR unless anyone's interested. Plus I haven't finished my coffee.
-
I like to think that all of the so-called "supernatural" events, and actually even things like schizophrenia and autism (usually described as a sort of sensory overload) can all be explained without resorting to handwaving.
Schizophrenia (or rather, the various symptoms that fall under that heading) as well as autism are pretty well defined medical conditions. While we are not entirely certain about what causes these things (the human brain being notoriously tricky), there's nothing supernatural about them.
My current theory is that our universe is closely intertwined with all of the other realities in the multiverse, and that sometimes, we can catch glimpses of our place in the multiverse. Ghosts, angels, whatever, what if we're just seeing through to some other universe? I have an extremely extensive theory but it's TL;DR unless anyone's interested. Plus I haven't finished my coffee.
Does it involve misunderstood quantum physics? And does your theory actually qualify for the scientific term of "theory"? Because there's some pretty strict requirements for that. Oh, and does your theory allow the construction of an experiment to prove or disprove it? (Corollary: Have you done such an experiment, and have you published your methodology?)
-
I like to think that all of the so-called "supernatural" events, and actually even things like schizophrenia and autism (usually described as a sort of sensory overload) can all be explained without resorting to handwaving.
Schizophrenia (or rather, the various symptoms that fall under that heading) as well as autism are pretty well defined medical conditions. While we are not entirely certain about what causes these things (the human brain being notoriously tricky), there's nothing supernatural about them.
My current theory is that our universe is closely intertwined with all of the other realities in the multiverse, and that sometimes, we can catch glimpses of our place in the multiverse. Ghosts, angels, whatever, what if we're just seeing through to some other universe? I have an extremely extensive theory but it's TL;DR unless anyone's interested. Plus I haven't finished my coffee.
Does it involve misunderstood quantum physics? And does your theory actually qualify for the scientific term of "theory"? Because there's some pretty strict requirements for that. Oh, and does your theory allow the construction of an experiment to prove or disprove it? (Corollary: Have you done such an experiment, and have you published your methodology?)
I freely admit that it's a bar napkin theory at the moment. I was basically just weighing in to point out that spirituality and science aren't mutually exclusive. Even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural, they don't have to write it off as insanity; there could be a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation.
As for the conjecture on my part, I'm working on it. We haven't proved the existence of a multiverse in the first place, so I know the support is shaky.
-
I don't want to get particularly involved in this discussion; I intend to share my 2 cents and be on my way.
I would submit that the odds of *everybody* who has claimed supernatural communication or experiences being schizophrenic are so low so as to be impossible.
(The E already hit most of the points I wanted to get here, and said it better than I prolly would have.)
Personally, I have had a very small number of experiences (dreams, mostly) that have made me honestly wonder whether such communication/prescience are possible, but for each case that I can recall, there have been mitigating (read: explanatory) factors that prevent my experiences from being registered as solely rooted in the supernatural. By "mitigating factors" I mean the presence of fears and/or anxieties in my cognition that get played out in my dreams without my conscious mind to quash the thoughts. Did these experiences rattle me? Hell, yes- one dream in particular prompted me to start logging my dreams for about a year to try and find a pattern. Do I immediately ascribe said dreams to the divine? Not at all, though I am truly left wondering a bit...
-
Spirituality; the depths of human emotion and psychology, the potential for humans to rise above our reptilian brains and sacrifice for our species, is not a myth. It arises from our ability to communicate, our mammalian tendencies, and our oversized brains.
That said, we have no evidence for anything beyond what we can observe and deduce, and what you have going on is neither.
-
No, spirituality and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Because they cover completely different areas of human knowledge. Spiritual matters are more of a subset of psychology, a topic on which science (or rather, physics) can't make any statements. It's when you try to connect the spiritual with the provable that problems arise. Because, in general, beliefs such as yours cannot be proven false or true. It's a mistake the young-earth-creationist, climate-change-denial and anti-vaccination crowds often make.
You say, "Even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural, they don't have to write it off as insanity; there could be a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation."
But when the available evidence points towards cognitive disorders as the most probable cause, and the other avenues of research fail to provide any evidence to the contrary, what conclusions is a well-informed being to draw?
-
No, spirituality and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Because they cover completely different areas of human knowledge. Spiritual matters are more of a subset of psychology, a topic on which science (or rather, physics) can't make any statements. It's when you try to connect the spiritual with the provable that problems arise. Because, in general, beliefs such as yours cannot be proven false or true. It's a mistake the young-earth-creationist, climate-change-denial and anti-vaccination crowds often make.
You say, "Even if someone doesn't believe in the supernatural, they don't have to write it off as insanity; there could be a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation."
But when the available evidence points towards cognitive disorders as the most probable cause, and the other avenues of research fail to provide any evidence to the contrary, what conclusions is a well-informed being to draw?
I'm well-aware that when we touch on such subjects, there's no way to prove anything and likely never will be. I was simply relating to the OP that ascribing such experiences to something that is generally thought to be purely mental (schizophrenia) is a possibility, yes, but that I think it's more likely that there could easily be physical and observable aspects as well that are simply being misinterpreted.
-
Well, neuropsychology can sort of make some statements about the human psyche in relation to its physical existence in the brain.
My definition of supernatural is easy; it doesn't exist. This follows from the first tenet of my personal belief system: All that exists is part of nature and therefore, by existing, excludes the possibility of it being of supernatural origins.
Whether our current level of knowledge can adequately or accurately explain a phenomenon is a different matter, but our ability (or inability) doesn't in ANY WAY affect the fundamental character of the phenomenon itself.
I further make things easier to myself by stating that we can only make informed statements about things we have objective, preferably repeatable, observations of. And by objective I mean something that can be verified by something else than our own belief. Preferably the observation should be doable with some non-biologic sensors, but if humans are used as part of the instrument (like was done in the early days of astronomy because there was no way to photograph the targets), then several observers should be used in blind testing to see if all of them report the same or similar observation.
There are several nonexistent celestial objects that were put on lists by people who were absolutely certain of having seen them. Good example of this would be Baxendell's Nebula (NGC 7088) (http://) which is also known as "The Unphotographable Nebula" and apparently never existed outside the imaginations of keen observers who wanted to see it, and thus saw it where it was supposed to be.
The power of self-delusion is remarkable in perfectly sane and functional people. The fact that majority of humanity belongs to at least one group whose primary purpose is to give them a readily organized set of beliefs, and then they truly believe that this set of beliefs is their own, even if they had never really thought through any of the tenets proposed to them by their particular group. All the major religions are full of internal inconsistencies, logical flaws and downright sillyness that is only justified by the dogmas of that particular belief system. And several people believe in their own group's ideas so strongly they are willing to harm others or themselves to further the "cause" (which is another delusion).
That said, many of these organized belief systems hold good ideals as well as nonsensical or bad ones. Many of the people who subscribe to an organized religion are not completely bereft of their common sense and thus cherry pick the good parts, and ignore the nonsensical or bad ones.
This is a totally rational response that only seems irrational because the primary delusion of wanting to belief is something they are often unwilling or incapable of performing a full review on. In fact, I'd say being capable of cherry picking the good parts of your religion is probably a better indication of mental health than whether you subscribe to a religion or not.
I'd also like to point out that subscribing to a religion doesn't really mean a person is fundamentally different psychologically than someone who doesn't subscribe to a religion. Non-religious people usually have other beliefs that they are just as unlikely to change as a religious person. Political view, opinions about economy, society, morals - these are good examples of things that people tend to adopt a view and then argue for that view, cherry picking the good arguments for their particular opinion, and disregarding others.
I'd say there is no person in existence who can remain completely rational and objective about everything. They would likely also be less functional than a person driven by their subjective opinions, as every decision making process would be painfully long and deliberate process, whereas the opinionated people (whether it's their own opinion or someone else's opinion they adopted) make the decision and the evolutionary algorithms of human history will then tend to show if that decision was a good one or a bad one.
-
I am also skeptical about the existence of supernatural beings. Since the dawn of human race, we tried to explain things. Most things were beyond scientific understanding of our ancestors. Gods, spirits and other supernatural beings were a good way to do that, and rich traditions, myths and religions arose from these attempts.
Of course, since people thought they (some of them, anyway) could talk with these supernatural beings and convince them to be benevolent to their community, organizations were created around that. Over time, they grew, and finally became less related to their religion and more to benefiting their own members.
Since human brain likes to see patterns, even where there aren't any, and these traditions were enforced by our parents and communities, people consider random events which fit their faith to confirm it, and forget about those which don't. People with mental disorders may claim to see religious beings, but mental illness it's not necessary for that.
Of course, other reasons are also there. People may claim to see supernatural beings out of greed. Another reason is that somebody wants to teach people something, and chooses the religion as a mean to make them follow him. Most holy text seem to have been written for this reason, to convey a message to people who wouldn't understand or remember it if told in normal words. For many people, "do so because it'd be good for other people around you" is not enough, but "do so because otherwise you'll be struck by lighting" will do the trick. This is especially true if there's no other reason for them to follow the message. Also, interesting stories with a moral are easier to remember.
I think that these "religious experiences" are not really meaningful. People should stop looking at God(s), angels, saints, etc. and listen to them instead. Or listen to wise people. Most modern major religions have a certain way of social behavior written in their holy texts, which, if (reasonably, of course) followed, is beneficial to the community. That's why I'm against church being so enormous and having so many privileges. This doesn't serve anybody but priests. Priests in all religions should be people who feel they need to guide people to follow the social behavior encouraged in their religion. And nothing else (meaning they pay taxes like everyone else). Preaching should be just another job.
-
I think that the way of life prescribed in religious texts is usually barbaric and stone aged.
-
Something moves the grass near primitive man. Is it a predator? The wind? Nothing at all?
We have the genes of the people who ran in case it was a predator. We are biologically prejudiced to believe in things we can't see.
-
i saw fairies once. mind you i was under the influence of some rather powerful psychoactive substances.
-
Ngtm-1R, that sounds more like genetic memory than evolution...
I'm reading a book right now that's on this very subject from a purely Christian perspective, and it examines experiences, modern and ancient, as well as events recordee in the Bible. It identifies several ways people claim to hear from God: a phenomenon with a voice, such as the burning bush, an angelic messenger, an unaccompanied voice, a dream or vision, the voice of another person speaking, usually unknowingly, to direct and specific circumstances, and an inward notion, often called the "still, small voice," which is a lot like one's own thoughts, except with a distinct sense of "otherness" to it.
This list is arranged from least common to most common. Virtually every Christian will attest to experiencing the still, small voice, so the fact that they're all crazy is ludicrous.
Now, as far as one saying that "we give circumstances special significance because we're supposedly wired to find meaning even in places where there is none (such as finding shapes in clouds)," I could just as easily counter by arguing that perhaps we are, in fact, wired that way by our creator to make it easy to recognize his hand moving through our lives, and it is only our sheer determination to become ignorant of him that causes us to suggest anything less. In my own life, I. Have experienced the still, small voice, as well as what I would say is God addressing me through another person, too many times and about too many things with too many tangible results for it to be mere coincidence. The other thing you'll find is that, when genuine, we rarely talk about such things unless asked.
As to the other experiences, I generally take it with a grain of salt, measure it against what the person says they believe, and see if they act crazy otherwise.
I have a friend that claims to have been aided by angels a couple of times, and claims to have dreams. Whether or not they are real or will come true, I cannot say, but I do know that this guy is otherwise normal, and that he has spoken into my life in ways he didn't realize, nor could he have unless he'd been following me nearly every moment since I was very young. And I don't believe that to be undeserved significance.
-
Hundreds if not thousands of years ago our long removed ancestors saw lightning strike and cowered in fear of the angry gods...
Sometimes I think humanity really hasn't come all that far, spiritually, in all time...
-
The whole concept of supernatural is rather useless, since only god would know enough to use it properly.
-
My stance on the topic is pretty simple.
If I can observe it, test it, and explain it through mathematics and physics, then it's of interest and potential use to me.
Otherwise, it's not.
-
Ngtm-1R, that sounds more like genetic memory than evolution...
Nope, that's evolution. We evolved to assume things were there and react to them, rather than carefully analyze, because it upped our survival (people who reacted didn't get eaten as much.)
I'm reading a book right now that's on this very subject from a purely Christian perspective, and it examines experiences, modern and ancient, as well as events recordee in the Bible. It identifies several ways people claim to hear from God: a phenomenon with a voice, such as the burning bush, an angelic messenger, an unaccompanied voice, a dream or vision, the voice of another person speaking, usually unknowingly, to direct and specific circumstances, and an inward notion, often called the "still, small voice," which is a lot like one's own thoughts, except with a distinct sense of "otherness" to it.
This list is arranged from least common to most common. Virtually every Christian will attest to experiencing the still, small voice, so the fact that they're all crazy is ludicrous.
Sometimes I wake up because I think my roommate is calling me, I open my door and no one is there! Am I crazy? No. Did I imagine something that does indeed happen, but didn't in this case? Yes. I reacted to a likely scenerio that DIDN'T happen, because, even in sleep, my brain received data from my senses, that suggested it was happening.
I think its perfectly feasible that much of the population of the species believes in something that's not there as well. Take the idea of sea monsters. Until we had explorered much of the ocean, and classified many of the animals therein, it seemed perfectly feasible that the gigantic, dead squid washing up on beaches regularly took down some of the ships that never came back from their voyages. The truth was, however, that the ships sank due to wind, not because of vicious kraken, and yet, it was a widely believed myth.
Now, as far as one saying that "we give circumstances special significance because we're supposedly wired to find meaning even in places where there is none (such as finding shapes in clouds)," I could just as easily counter by arguing that perhaps we are, in fact, wired that way by our creator to make it easy to recognize his hand moving through our lives, and it is only our sheer determination to become ignorant of him that causes us to suggest anything less.
No, you couldn't. You have no evidence for that. We have significant understanding of how the brain works, and why it is the way it is. Not full, but significant, mind you. I think the part of our brain that's so adept at recognizing faces, (which happened because we're quite social creatures) is also pretty good at making us imagine faces when they aren't there.
In my own life, I. Have experienced the still, small voice, as well as what I would say is God addressing me through another person, too many times and about too many things with too many tangible results for it to be mere coincidence. The other thing you'll find is that, when genuine, we rarely talk about such things unless asked.
You know what? I have too! When I believed in the Christian God, I had a little voice that told me what the right thing to do was, or that I was doing a good, or bad job at some task. As I realized that I had no evidence for what I believed, I also realized that that voice, which had brought me through so much, was a part of ME that every good thought I'd had in my life I'd attributed to God, but really, it had been me the whole time.
As to the other experiences, I generally take it with a grain of salt, measure it against what the person says they believe, and see if they act crazy otherwise.
The funny thing is that perfectly sane, well adjusted people will act crazy in some ways. No one is entirely rational. Someone might be completely level headed about economics for instance, but have an irrational fear of spiders.
Thousands of years ago our long removed ancestors saw lightning strike and cowered in fear of the angry gods...
Sometimes I think humanity really hasn't come all that far, spiritually, in all time...
I work in retail and I definitely feel like people are a lot too much like lemurs much too much of the time.
-
I like to think that all of the so-called "supernatural" events, and actually even things like schizophrenia and autism (usually described as a sort of sensory overload) can all be explained without resorting to handwaving.
My current theory is that our universe is closely intertwined with all of the other realities in the multiverse, and that sometimes, we can catch glimpses of our place in the multiverse. Ghosts, angels, whatever, what if we're just seeing through to some other universe? I have an extremely extensive theory but it's TL;DR unless anyone's interested. Plus I haven't finished my coffee.
I usually like things that most people view as TL;DR
I've never had any of these experiences, but I know some people that say they have. And some of those people have a family history of mental illness.
Other than hyper-religious people, most people avoid this subject entirely.
Furthermore, I haven't been to church since I was in elementary school. I also now believe in the Big Bang, the Multiverse, and evolution.
However, I cannot let go of the few Christian beliefs I have. For example, I cannot help but believe that God created the Big Bang (let there be light). I suppose that is because I cannot explain where the singularity came from and I cannot fathom the idea that the universe was, always has been, and always will be.
But I really don't know what to believe or how much to believe besides that.
As stated earlier, people long ago attributed hurricanes, storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc. to the divine. Now we do not. It may be that these "experiences" have a scientific explanation but we just do not know what it is yet.
So, I don't know what to believe.
-
The things you can't let go of, you believe in because you feel like you need to believe in something, is the impression I get. You can't just leave it at "I don't know."
Get used to it, there are a lot of things in life like that. "Will I be fired from my job?" I don't know. "Will I ever find a companion?" I don't know. "What was before the big bang?" I don't know.
You can break all of those down to statistics, you can make educated guesses. Eventually we'll even find out about all of them. In the long run though, those questions are unanswered, and believing in something so absurd and unfounded will not help you at all.
EDIT:
Also, tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes are well explained phenomenon. We DO know what causes those.
-
I clearly stated that we DO NOT attribute those to the divine.
I also want to believe in those things "just in case."
Maybe those people see those things because that is what they are taught. Therefore, they see what they want to see.
-
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. - Galileo Galilei
It's not so much "belief" as religious dogma that is and always has been the problem. How could it be otherwise? We learn new things about the universe we live in every day... that the people who lived 2000 years ago and wrote their "truth" in all those books of faith and sacred scripture simply had no f***ing clue about.
The part that has me dumbstruck is the people who keep believing despite proof to the contrary.
On the other hand with belief that defies reality it is no wonder that people start seeing and hearing things.... our brain is after all very adept at creating its own reality for ourselves - matter of fact that's one of its main functions: constructing a model of reality out of all the raw data hitting our senses - and it's woefully easy to fool it during that task. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo propably being one of the more popular experiments.
-
I'm offended by the lack of offense conveyed in this thread.
-
Most of the people who would be offended have either packed up their bags and left, been banned from GD for not backing up their arguments, or made a blanket decision to avoid threads like this specifically because of that.
-
Misconceptions of schizophrenia aside (and thanks to The E for trying to fix those), Mars has made the single most important statement in this thread, which I'll paraphrase and simplify for accuracy:
Human brains are wired, through our behavioural and physiological evolution, to look for and identify patterns, even (or most especially) where none actually exist. Our brains function largely by classifying, grouping, and summarizing. This makes us especially prone to finding meaning where none may objectively exist (though as we're in the system good luck with objective measurement).
Essentially, our primate brains and behaviours are lazy, and the supernatural is the most convenient explanation for perfectly natural phenomena. We're biased into seeing "God" in the picture because our behavioural evolution has not actually caught up with our ability to gather and comprehend knowledge.
A simple demonstration of this is possible - there are plenty of optical illusions where people see faces in clouds, water, rocks, photographs, etc. There aren't actually faces there, it's just that facial recognition is such an important part of our behavioural evolution that our brains tend to over-reach and find facial patterns even when they aren't actually there. My wife and I have an early sonogram of our presently-gestating baby that you'd swear looks like a female face.
-
Most of the people who would be offended have either packed up their bags and left, been banned from GD for not backing up their arguments, or made a blanket decision to avoid threads like this specifically because of that.
and HLP has been a much less entertaining place because of this.
and to answer the question of this thread, yes, it is completely possible that they were all schizophrenic, though I would be more inclined to use the word delusional, which is a much broader term more likely to capture the cause, though it does not account for those who simply misinterpreted something real because they were predisposed to the interpetation they made, in which case I think the term 'mistaken' would be the best way to describe them.
-
I think religious upbringing is a more probably candidate. You'll see the virgin Mary on burned toast not because you're crazy, but because you were conditioned to see God in various forms; Thousands of people die on 9/11, but you see God's hand there because among the rubble, some rebars formed what looks like a cross. A better example would probably be the story about that little boy who claimed to have seen Jesus while his body was basically dead in the emergency room a while back... his family got a book published about what he saw and they made lots of money. Imagine all those situations where people claim to have something like this happen -- Before that happened, it's likely that they would have discussed the issue with someone who, in turn, would be able to "shape" their interpretation of events. In the case of the boy, with his family being Christian, it is very likely that his parents asked him if he saw Jesus. Not knowing whether he did or not, he goes along with this.
When you have an encounter with what you believe to be the supernatural, you're ****ed because as has been mentioned, we're pattern-seekers, and the supernatural can't be tested or measured. Cognitive dissonance is gonna make it hard to simply ignore it and make nothing of it, but that's the honest and best thing to do; not trying to explain something you can't even measure.
-
The word you're all looking for (except the good chaps who probably know it already) is pareidolia
Most religious experiences can be replicated by stimulating areas of the brain, suggesting that profound religious states can be induced through purely physical manipulation. This does not, of course, devalue religious experience in and of itself, any more than it devalues other brainstates like happiness or love
Also I think that you should know that apophenia is apropos, it helps explain acheropites
-
There were several interesting points raised in this thread. Indeed human visual system classifies plenty of stuff beforehand without the thought ever appearing to mind. Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=148E6nHKmq8) a good example of "Face in the clouds". Makes one think if this would have been interpreted as a religious sign earlier, doesn't it? I can find several other phenomena that contribute on the belief as well; glorying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon)) is one of those. But I have never understood why it has been taken as a sign of holiness. Spotting these is relatively simple nowadays in the airplanes, I usually see those when I'm sitting next to the window, and sun is shining from the other side of the airplane. Some amount of clouds is needed so that the shadow of the airplane is visible on the cloud. Around this shadow one usually sees a circular rainbow, though the order of colors is actually reversed and it is not seen in ~42 degree angle, but much smaller. Look around, it's pretty!
Of clairvoyance then, I do know a friend who is able to tell when people are about to die. She said that in her dreams, people tend to die shortly after they appear static, not moving, responding or doing anything in the dream. My understanding is that this is some kind of deduction from the observations seen while awake, there are probably several clues before somebody dies of illness or of age that are somehow discarded, or it is just not somehow acceptable to recognize them. I'm not sure if she was able to do that for accidents as well. I tend to experience some amount of deja vu myself, though the occurrences have reduced by some amount in the recent years. I have felt a disturbance in the Force as well, though this happened to a person that I then cared much about and nobody else. It is a strange thing, being myself a Physicist I can't explain it. There just wasn't any physically feasible way I could have known that something had happened.
Some people's brain is just wired in a way they can see little green men. Less often nowadays, but I know it can at least be stimulated with relatively heavy physical demands, this happened to several hopefuls in a boot camp in the Reserve Officer School when we were on a march carrying **** loads of equipment. I never saw one myself, though. When you have - or better said had - a person whose mind was like this and he happened to be vocal as well, I think it is not far-fetched to think that people believed him since he sounds so sure of himself. Compare this to nowadays politicians.
-
Working as a CNA you can usually tell when someone is about to die, within one or two interactions. They have a look.
-
I think religious upbringing is a more probably candidate. You'll see the virgin Mary on burned toast not because you're crazy, but because you were conditioned to see God in various forms; Thousands of people die on 9/11, but you see God's hand there because among the rubble, some rebars formed what looks like a cross. A better example would probably be the story about that little boy who claimed to have seen Jesus while his body was basically dead in the emergency room a while back...
And if I had such an experience and saw naked women everywhere no one would give a f***.
But if your own conditioning makes you see something during a near death experience that confirms the conditioning of millions of other people that are actively looking for "signs of god" everyone rejoices and praises the lord.
An alien observer would most likely say "silly silly monkeys" at this point. ;)
I mean seriously... as a believing Christian that is the very thing you expect to see... and since you do expect it, your brain MAKES you see it. Classic self fullfilling prophecy. Documented countless times.
And yeah if i don't see my GF in a long time she actually does appear in my dreams, so I would find it entirely possible that she would appear during a near death experience, most likely in a very indecent manner, since I am a perv. :P
Same thing. Different conditioning. :)
-
Yep, there is no such thing as the supernatural. It's all delusion
Glad we cleared that up, someone can close the thread now
-
That sounds severe Turambar. You need to look beyond your own nose and go deep into the stories that people say. Yes, they could be crazy, but I think people aren't delusional.
How well do you know planet Earth, Turambar? We 'think' we know our planet, but in reality it could be holding many secrets.
This is the word to a not-crazy person that believes in the unknown.
-
That sounds severe Turambar. You need to look beyond your own nose and go deep into the stories that people say. Yes, they could be crazy, but I think people aren't delusional.
How well do you know planet Earth, Turambar? We 'think' we know our planet, but in reality it could be holding many secrets.
This is the word to a not-crazy person that believes in the unknown.
There are lots of things we don't know. Believing everything you hear or see or come up with doesn't help that.
-
Okay, I loosely believe the stories that I hear, but you can't call someone delusional that would be too easy.
-
some times the easiest solution is the correct one.
-
Okay, I loosely believe the stories that I hear, but you can't call someone delusional that would be too easy.
The people themselves, delusional, no. Misguided, in that they start with a ridiculous premise that they were fed from birth and end up reaching conclusions that could be called 'delusional,' yes.
EDIT:
I know a lot of really smart, analytical people who believe some really stupid things because they've never questioned their fundamentals. Usually its because they're scared of discovering that they're wrong, and that when they die, they're really dead, and when no one loves them, really no one loves them.