A Seeker's Dilemma

[Podo]

But since you bring it up, how can you be sure anything perceived with the eyes (or any other sense, for that matter) isn't a "heaping teaspoon of pareidolia?"

Pareidolia is the identification of patterns that do not actually exist. Pattern recognition is one of humanity's main evolutionary advantages. When we look at a cloud and say "hey that looks like a rabbit," that's pareidolia, because we see a rabbit where there is, in reality, only a cloud. As such, there are things that do not qualify. Your observation of the computer in front of you cannot be pareidolia because it is an observable and verifiable existence and set of properties, there is nothing subjective about it. Anything else of that nature, that can be verified in an objective sense, can therefore not be pareidolia.

It's only been a direct communication a couple of times; usually it's a striking event at an appropriate time, and on a couple of occasions it was immediate relief from symptoms of illness on praying.

Interesting. What illness symptoms did you suffer from?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Pareidolia is the identification of patterns that do not actually exist. Pattern recognition is one of humanity's main evolutionary advantages. When we look at a cloud and say "hey that looks like a rabbit," that's pareidolia, because we see a rabbit where there is, in reality, only a cloud. As such, there are things that do not qualify. Your observation of the computer in front of you cannot be pareidolia because it is an observable and verifiable existence and set of properties, there is nothing subjective about it. Anything else of that nature, that can be verified in an objective sense, can therefore not be pareidolia.

The image I provided in my last post, which you should have seen in the 'reply' field, showed a Quran verse fragment in a beehive, flames in the shape of the Pope, sauce and toast with Jesus' image, and a cinnamon roll with Mother Teresa's face (image can also be seen here: http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/08/...tilla-the-puzzle-of-religious-pareidolia.html). So you can indeed see pareidolia on a computer screen.

In your response, you explained what pareidolia is, but didn't answer my question.

 

[Podo]

The image I provided in my last post, which you should have seen in the 'reply' field, showed a Quran verse fragment in a beehive, flames in the shape of the Pope, sauce and toast with Jesus' image, and a cinnamon roll with Mother Teresa's face (image can also be seen here: http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/08/...tilla-the-puzzle-of-religious-pareidolia.html). So you can indeed see pareidolia on a computer screen.

In your response, you explained what pareidolia is, but didn't answer my question.

Ah, I apologize, I don't see any images on your post, just a bunch of broken image icons. Is there a setting on the boards that allows/disallows images?

As for the pareidolia, I explained why the majority of what we see can be safely assessed as being unrelated to pareidolia. "As such, there are things that do not qualify. Your observation of the computer in front of you cannot be pareidolia because it is an observable and verifiable existence and set of properties, there is nothing subjective about it. Anything else of that nature, that can be verified in an objective sense, can therefore not be pareidolia." Things that do not rely on patterns are free (or at least, extremely far removed) from the grasp of pareidolia. Therefore, I can be very sure that my computer monitor, the colour of my cat, the texture of tree bark, and other easily-verifiable qualities observed around me are unrelated to pareidolia. More subjective things, however, can very readily be pareidolia: shadows, clouds, shapes in fire, abstract art, vague senses and impressions of otherworldly things, these could all be our minds seeing patterns where none exist. That isn't to say that none of these things could be real, of course, but the chance of your mind tricking someone into seeing significance in otherwise unrelated events is much higher than tricking you that your computer desk is somehow not what it seems.

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

Why do you need Abrahamic religion , to remove your self ?

 

[Podo]

Why do you need Abrahamic religion , to remove your self ?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I do not need Abrahamic religions. I'm not even a fan of the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

I believe in realized actuality but I approach that thru faith in Radha-Krishna. I am a mystic and believe there are only mystic's nothing else or you could call everyone enigma's I suppose. The Bhagavad Gita text originally is in Sanskrit. That is the oldest language on the planet and where the other languages originate from. There are many deities in the so called Hindu tradition but I choose to worship Radha-Krishna. Both the Masculine and Feminine aspects of a divine intelligence are there in my form of the highest principle. Even as I follow some rituals I have this new age take on my faith that others in my faith have no conceptions about. I link the cutting edge science of today with the old conceptions of the past. I feel a civilization such as the one we see now on our planet existed in the past. A civilization about to come upon the biggest technological breakthru's. This will enable them to evolve in to basically infinite creatures with basically infinite power or resources. Such highly evolved creatures will be in possession of creative abilities that exceed those we have witnessed on earth until the present. In conclusion the reality we inhabit is likely one created by a fully realized transcendent being. We could be living in the creation of that realized transcendent being but be unaware of it. I feel we just pass time going thru perhaps 1,000's of births and deaths until we ourselves become the fully realized transcendent being which I mentioned previously. I'm not saying a super alien controls our reality but sort of yes this is what I'm saying. Only difference is that intelligence basically is us. That controller of which I speak is us fast forwarded to the future like 400,000 years. The humans we are now if left to evolve 400,000 years into the future would appear nothing like what we are today. We would be a super intelligence with no ability to self destroy unless we chose that. Strange belief but so is every belief and if you follow the logic this belief actually happens.

 

[Podo]

That is the oldest language on the planet and where the other languages originate from.

This is demonstrably untrue. Sanskrit comes from Proto-Indo-European, and it is wholly unrelated to languages that are not derived from Indo-European languages (semitic languages, afroasiatic languages, japonic languages, turkik languages, wakashan languages, etc). The Indo-European language family is huge, but it is far from exhaustive. Furthermore, there are several languages within the same family that aren't related to Sanskrit; Proto-germanic, proto-italic, proto-gaelic, etc. Sanskrit is super old and did spawn a lot of languages, absolutely, and it is one of the oldest languages that we have written records for, but it is far from the first language. There isn't even a first language; not one that there is any evidence for, anyway. Sumerian, for example, is much older than Sanskrit, also has a writing system, and is not related in any way to indo-european languages since it was a language isolate.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello all,

I want to talk to people about what they believe, why it works for them, and why they consider their path to be a positive thing in their lives.

I'm wondering how everyone here settled on the belief set that they eventually settled on. What about your religion won you over? When did you decide to start identifying as a member of whatever community you belong to? Did you have difficulty being accepted into your group? I am particularly interested in Hinduism and Heathenism, and to a lesser extent modern Paganism (both neo and reconstructionist). I'm attracted by the orthopraxic, rather than orthodoxic, aspects of these faiths, as well as the seemingly world-affirming outlook, rather than the classical abrahamic world-denying outlook.

Currently, I'm experiencing a form of philosophical crisis, insofar as my lifelong materialism just isn't cuttin' it anymore. I am at a point in my life where I feel like I should align myself with a particular philosophy and/or religion. This is a pretty significant shift for me, as I've been an atheist since I was a child, and my profession has reinforced this attitude (I work in the science and technology sector).

I have been fascinated with religion all my life, though. I have read every holy text I can get my hands on, everything from the Abrahamic texts, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Eddas, Tao Te Ching in English and Mandarin, Buddhist texts, and many others. My partner is a Celtic Reconstructionist. I take great interest in her rituals and beliefs, to the point where I have begun to think that my interest is not merely academic.

Why were you an atheist in the first place? It sounds like you didn't have good reasons. Perhaps you should examine all of the god claims and reject those that do not have sufficient evidence to support them. Isn't a reality based life a better life?

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

Podo You may be knowing of the archeaological site on the eastern side of the Indus river that is in present day pakistan called homenjo daro. They are dating this at around 4,900 years old where as sites in Sumeria are only about 2,900 years old. Similar artifacts/buildings/artwork as in homenjo daro are also found in locations like Lolath in Northern India. There is a big push in the Western countries to portray Sumeria as the origin point for language agriculture and the like because for whatever reasons certain powers want to down play or hide the extent of those Eastern Kingdoms. However the truth is they were thriving and big in trade at an earlier time. Many Sumerian writings indicate a God/Lord of the sky, this is first found in the ancient writings composing Bhagavad Gita where they mention the spiritual sky numerous times. Old India had many advancements at least at concurrent times to these other civilizations. Advancements like sailing vessels and math formulas. Actually research is revealing now that the borders to these civilizations are nothing like the borders for these places now. India was extending way out in to Afghanistan and as far as malayasia in that era. I know that this all is being debated right now but there are divergent scholars/researchers/academics. We have to look at those scholars/researchers/academics interests-incentives and where they themselves are. Such as in which powerful countries they have ties to at present for funding or just plain conceptual mind set(s).

 

[Podo]

They are dating this at around 4,900 years old where as sites in Sumeria are only about 2,900 years old.

Untrue. Homenjo Daro is super old, for sure, but Sumeria goes back to almost 7000 years. Mohenjo-Daro was built around 2500 BCE, which is about 4500-5000 years ago. Undeniably ancient, but it is younger than Sumeria. Furthermore, the language of Mohenjo-Daro would have been a Dravidian language, which while they are definitely Indo-European (like Sanskrit), is a different language family. Sanskrit contains a lot of features that are very unlike any other indo-european language, which is an intriguing mystery that most linguists explain via the Dravidium language substrate hypothesis.

There is a big push in the Western countries to portray Sumeria as the origin point for language agriculture and the like because for whatever reasons certain powers want to down play or hide the extent of those Eastern Kingdoms.

Nobody says that Sumeria is the first source of language, nor does anyone with any education say that it is the origin of culture, either. It was neither. It is our source for oldest writing, but nobody with any education whatsoever would ever claim that Sumeria was the origin of language itself. That's preposterous. The eastern kingdoms had rich culture contemporary to Sumeria, but that doesn't change the demonstrable fact that Sumerian is older than Sanskrit, and that Sanskrit is not and CAN NOT BE the "first language," since it is clearly not related linguistically to the majority of human languages. Sanskrit's evolution is very well understood, since we have a very solid understanding of the Indo-european language family, and its many branches.

However the truth is they were thriving and big in trade at an earlier time. Many Sumerian writings indicate a God/Lord of the sky, this is first found in the ancient writings composing Bhagavad Gita where they mention the spiritual sky numerous times.

All true. This in no way proves that Sanskrit is the first human language, however. The ancient Indian civilisations had much contact with Sumer and other ancient peoples/languages/cultures. Their languages were very different, however, and still demonstrably and inarguably unrelated.

However, sky deities are not unique to India. As you can see, almost every culture has had, at some point, a sky deity. The indo-europeans, of which the Sanskrit speakers were part of, almost always have a sky-father aspect in their beliefs. India was one of the first to write it down, but it is hardly the originator. There are plenty of artifacts and art from pre-vedic civilisations that show a sky father.

Old India had many advancements at least at concurrent times to these other civilizations. Advancements like sailing vessels and math formulas. Actually research is revealing now that the borders to these civilizations are nothing like the borders for these places now. India was extending way out in to Afghanistan and as far as malayasia in that era.

Absolutely! Old Indian civilisations invented a lot of things, and had overwhelming influence on the world around them. They were unparalleled in science, medicine, art, and culture for many thousands of years. I don't disagree with any of this. However, as I've said before, this does not prove that Sanskrit was the original language or that the indians were the first civilisation. Sanskrit is an indo-european language, ultimately coming from Proto-Indo-European. What came before that? We don't know. But it's a non-debated and well-studied reality. Unless you're a linguist and have actual evidence on the contrary, anyway. But I doubt that.

We have to look at those scholars/researchers/academics interests-incentives and where they themselves are. Such as in which powerful countries they have ties to at present for funding or just plain conceptual mind set(s).

I agree entirely. Present evidence that Sanskrit is not an Indo-european language. Prove that your theory is correct; you have made the claim that "sanskrit is the oldest language," so now it is up to you to defend and prove it. Overturn three hundred years of linguistic discovery.

 

[Podo]

Why were you an atheist in the first place? It sounds like you didn't have good reasons. Perhaps you should examine all of the god claims and reject those that do not have sufficient evidence to support them. Isn't a reality based life a better life?

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for any deity, anywhere, ever, and I highly doubt that there ever will be. I don't necessarily WANT a religion, I'm just frustrated that 99.9% of who I meet all have this magical ability to shove logic aside in favour of their own feelings on the subject. I want to understand that mindset, how someone can look at an unattested and unprovable concept and go "yes this is true." Maybe I've been missing something? But more likely, it's simply that: wishful thinking on the part of the majority of humanity.

 

[Milton Platt]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for any deity, anywhere, ever, and I highly doubt that there ever will be. I don't necessarily WANT a religion, I'm just frustrated that 99.9% of who I meet all have this magical ability to shove logic aside in favour of their own feelings on the subject. I want to understand that mindset, how someone can look at an unattested and unprovable concept and go "yes this is true." Maybe I've been missing something? But more likely, it's simply that: wishful thinking on the part of the majority of humanity.

Perhaps you can post some updates along the way.

 

[George-ananda]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for any deity, anywhere, ever, and I highly doubt that there ever will be. I don't necessarily WANT a religion, I'm just frustrated that 99.9% of who I meet all have this magical ability to shove logic aside in favour of their own feelings on the subject. I want to understand that mindset, how someone can look at an unattested and unprovable concept and go "yes this is true." Maybe I've been missing something? But more likely, it's simply that: wishful thinking on the part of the majority of humanity.

Well I am a Hindu/Advaita pantheist (former atheist) and can understand your frustration and confusion. To me starting your philosophical speculation with the question does God or god(s) exist is too hard, How should I know if something I can't even understand exists?

I start closer to home with the human experience and the paranormal evidence that there is more than the physical plane of our physical senses and instruments. From the evidence I have come to believe there is 'more' beyond reasonable doubt. Next step is then what is this 'more' and are there those that know more than I about it. I will consider the different information out there on the subject and consider it against the evidence and my reasoning skills. I know believe what I feel is most reasonable to believe.

 

[siti]

Because there is no evidence whatsoever for any deity, anywhere, ever, and I highly doubt that there ever will be. I don't necessarily WANT a religion, I'm just frustrated that 99.9% of who I meet all have this magical ability to shove logic aside in favour of their own feelings on the subject. I want to understand that mindset, how someone can look at an unattested and unprovable concept and go "yes this is true." Maybe I've been missing something? But more likely, it's simply that: wishful thinking on the part of the majority of humanity.

Or - as I think you were suggesting earlier pareidolia...but I agree with @George-ananda - at least I agree with this:

I start closer to home with the human experience...

But not this:

...and the paranormal evidence

If you want a philosophical journey to "God", then I think you have to start with the human experience - we don't have any other kind of experience anyway - and extrapolate from there. In fact I think experience - the fact (not the content) of experience (by which I mean the fact that I experience "the world") is in fact the only fact I can be 100% certain of. I may even be an illusion and the rest of the world may be an illusion, but the fact that I am experiencing the illusion still cannot be denied. So where does that come from? Is it present in less complex life forms like ants or bees - sure - they seem to "experience" "the world" chemically even if they don't experience it mentally (and we don't really know whether or not they do that). Even bacteria follow chemical gradients to food - so even the simplest life forms seem to experience the world in some sense...

...what about non-biological 'entities'? Does an electron 'experience' its world? How deep does it go?

And then the question arises: where does this 'experience' thing come from? Has it somehow emerged from a completely 'non-experiential' fundamental reality? That is essentially the materialist position but it invokes exactly the kind of radical (perhaps miraculous) emergence that materialists disavow wholeheartedly - especially when thinking about religious traditions. Or has it been there from the very beginning and at the most fundamental levels of reality? Does 'experience' or better 'experientiality' (the propensity to 'experience' pervade the entire cosmos at some (perfectly natural, but you have to admit wondrously enigmatic) level?

Either way, materialism fails to deny the existence of deity (not that that is the point or purpose of materialism but you'll see where I am going in a minute) because...

...if the undeniable fact of experience has emerged - why couldn't the cosmos also - quite naturally - bring forth a higher level of experientiality - on the level of deity - that is (as it evolves) at first tribal, then national, perhaps global or even, who knows, universal? Whether or not such an emergent deity (or deities) are genuinely worthy of the title - we can't deny that they are 'real' emanations from collective (and individual) human experience and whether or not such 'deities' could ever hope to expand their horizons as far as or even beyond a genuinely 'global consciousness' is debatable (and yet that seems to be the goal - stated or tacit - and in their different ways of, among others, Baha'is, multi-national corporations and social media and the internet generally). In this case, deities are simply a kind of collective human consciousness and we'll always have them - even if we stubbornly refuse to call them Gods and even if we don't like them very much...and we have to learn to live with them (which might even be an uplifting - dare I say spiritual - experience if we really learn to roll with it).

...if, on the other hand, that 'panexperiential' reality has been a fundamental part of reality from the get go, then it itself is tantamount (I am suggesting) to a kind of deity - a genuinely universal cosmic experientiality. Though I certainly would not suggest 'cosmic consciousness' (this is very definitely not a nod to new agey woo woo stuff and nonsense) because I very much doubt that 'it' is in any way 'conscious' in anything like the manner individual biologically complex organisms like humans are, I would say that the thought that the universe is 'experiencing itself' and that we are a (if not the) conscious part of that experience is definitely worthy of awe and wonderment of the 'spiritual' (not necessarily religious) kind. Is this sufficient to satisfy the 'spiritual' needs of a rationally skeptical thinking person who has no need of supernaturalism and divine revelation? Maybe - but for most people I guess it simply is nowhere near "God" enough.

It is perhaps 'the path less trod' - but its the path I'm on right now having gone from devout believer to outright skeptic - I'm now trying to follow the path of understanding...'tis a long and bumpy road and I have 'miles to go before I sleep' - but knowing that at least is a start - don't you think?

 

[Gohelwan alien Vega 17b]

Podo No I am not a linguist. I have gathered that Indo-European means that the language originates from outside India and is brought into India. Is that correct? If so I can tell you that the majority of Indians refute the Sanskrit language was brought into India. I live with Indians at this very moment. I am sharing an apartment with close Indian friends. And Indians are all around me where I live. They right now currently refute the above about some path bringing Sanskrit in but acknowledge that this debate is alive and on going with the different theories present. I have met one Indian out of hundreds who contended that Sanskrit may have been brought in to the subcontinent. Podo I do have to say however that much of your information you shared is interesting and worth contemplating. I am not a so-labeled expert from academia...

 

[Podo]

Podo No I am not a linguist. I have gathered that Indo-European means that the language originates from outside India and is brought into India. Is that correct?

Yes and no. I provided many links in my last response that explain the Indo-European language family. Read through them, it's a complex topic and there's no shame in being ignorant of the history of linguistic drift. In short, though, the language family originated, most scholars think, somewhere north of the Black Sea. However, Sanskrit as a language developed more or less exclusively within the Indian Subcontinent. Language is a constantly-changing thing, it's not as simple as "this is from here, this became X, etc." So while the language that Sanskrit developed from did ultimately originate from outside of India, Sanskrit itself originates from India.

If so I can tell you that the majority of Indians refute the Sanskrit language was brought into India.

So what? Are they linguists? Do they have provable linguistic, anthropological, historical, or archaeological evidence to support their refutations? If not, their protestations are irrelevant. The observable fact of the matter is that Sanskrit is observably within the Indo-European language family. That doesn't mean that Sanskrit is somehow lesser, nor does it mean that India's cultural and historical contribution to world culture is less. India's culture is very ancient, as is their language. That Sanskrit developed from a previous language, just like every other language on the planet, is not a strike against it. It's still one of the oldest languages that we have a good working knowledge of, and is arguably the best-understood and most important of the ancient tongues.

They right now currently refute the above about some path bringing Sanskrit in but acknowledge that this debate is alive and on going with the different theories present.

Like I previously says, Sanskrit developed in India. The language that BECAME Sanskrit came from outside of India. The Indo-Aryan Migration Theory addresses this, and is supported by a huge bulk of evidence. The summary is that the speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian, the originators of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European, migrated south from the Black Sea around 2000 BCE. That language then separated into Old Persian, Sanskrit, and Avestan. Sanskrit, therefore, developed alongside these other languages, sharing a common ancestor. This is why Sanskrit is very similar to these other languages. The language didn't become Sanskrit until after the group arrived and settled in India, however.

There are no serious scholars that disagree that Sanskrit is part of the Indo-European Language Family. It is observable, even today, that it is part of the same family. What IS open to debate is when it arrived in India, which is a perfectly valid subject of inquiry, and there's lots of contention around it. I think the best thing to keep in mind is that Sanskrit isn't any less important simply because it isn't "the oldest language." Indian history is hugely influential, and no amount of linguistics can diminish that.

 

[arthra]

What about your religion won you over? When did you decide to start identifying as a member of whatever community you belong to? Did you have difficulty being accepted into your group? I

Before I became a Baha'i around 1965 I explored various religions and one conclusion I had as a result was that I could not reject Krishna, the Buddha or Moses, Christ and Muhammad. I was also involved in the Peace Movement and Civil Rights movement. When I read some Baha'i books such as "Baha'u'llah and the New Era"
Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era
as well as "Baha'i World Faith"
Bahá'í World Faith
I knew I had to declare and join the Baha'i community.

Baha'is are very accepting and I had no problem(s) joining it.