[FlamingCobra]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Cyborg17]

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. 

Edit: Various corrections/additions/subtractions for clarity's sake.

[Mars]

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.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

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.

[The E]

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?)

[TwentyPercentCooler]

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.

[IronBeer]

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...

[Mars]

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.

[The E]

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?

[TwentyPercentCooler]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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) 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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Mars]

I think that the way of life prescribed in religious texts is usually barbaric and stone aged.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Nuke]

i saw fairies once. mind you i was under the influence of some rather powerful psychoactive substances.

[G0atmaster]

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.

[Mikes]

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...

[castor]

The whole concept of supernatural is rather useless, since only god would know enough to use it properly.

[watsisname]

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.