oldfart
Older than dirt
First, I really appreciate the summary. Those of us who run across the thread and think the topic interesting don't want to waste the time of others by rehashing old material, but frankly by the time I had read 3500 posts, I would have forgotten the content of the first 3000!
I would agree. But there is still a need for a common understanding of the "something". A quick survey leads me to believe there are three candidates out there:
1. A personified deity which happens to match the exact attributes of the poster's belief's (most often a Biblical God)
2. A generic personified deity which exists, has personified attributes and interacts with individuals (you can pray to it, entreat it, worship it and so forth)
3. The clockmaker god of the Enlightenment (or the functional equivalent; a "first mover" no longer active in guiding its own creation.
As an aside, there are another set of concepts which may or may not have been raised which pose very interesting issues. For example, the malevolent deity, the universe-as-deity, and so forth.
This comes awfully close to a proof by definition. If "spiritual evidence" can only be recognized by those who accept the existence of "spiritual nature", then the question is circular. I have not added a QED and dismissed your point however, since I basically agree with you.
I'm more comfortable coming at it from a different angle. Philosophical Taoism (the school to which I belong) has a method which generally depends on observation, contemplation, and meditation. This is guided by a pedagogical method today generally labeled as "guided discovery". In this system there is no such thing as "holy books", "esoteric knowledge", or "revelation". Everything useful to know could be learned by almost any human being who had a desire to find out such things and an ability to see clearly. Of course that's a pretty small number of people, and learning unaided is very inefficient. But it's possible and people do it.
So would this method encounter "spiritual nature"? It does, if you want to think that way. More commonly, it is helpful to "translate" the terms you use to the concepts and language of Taoism. Taoism is the exploration of the meaning and implications of Tao in answering the question of "How should a wise person conduct their life and treat other people?" As Tao is by definition (First chapter of "Tao te Ching" begins "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao") undefinable, I am at the get-go at the exact same place you are when I question whether your discovering "spiritual nature" is a circular argument true by definition. It's both an end to logical inquiry and a beginning to understanding.
Replace "God" with "Tao" and I say the same thing. The key is that what you are getting at and Taoism are both experiential. They are not logical systems, although they are not incompatible with logic (which a lot of revelatory religion is!). I see water running downhill and surmise a principle that extends to thing other than fluid mechanics. I presume you do to. Something like this leads to laws of thermodynamics and concepts of entropy (although give the discussion up-thread I shudder to say that!). It also can lead to insights about human communication and interactions. To what can we attribute this relatedness if not to what you call "spiritual evidence"?
This is not to say that what you call "spiritual nature" and I call Tao are the same thing. They probably overlap without being identical. But I would venture that I could learn something from your experiences and how you process that information that is meaningful in my frame of reference. I certainly hope so.
Jamie
I would agree. But there is still a need for a common understanding of the "something". A quick survey leads me to believe there are three candidates out there:
1. A personified deity which happens to match the exact attributes of the poster's belief's (most often a Biblical God)
2. A generic personified deity which exists, has personified attributes and interacts with individuals (you can pray to it, entreat it, worship it and so forth)
3. The clockmaker god of the Enlightenment (or the functional equivalent; a "first mover" no longer active in guiding its own creation.
As an aside, there are another set of concepts which may or may not have been raised which pose very interesting issues. For example, the malevolent deity, the universe-as-deity, and so forth.
This comes awfully close to a proof by definition. If "spiritual evidence" can only be recognized by those who accept the existence of "spiritual nature", then the question is circular. I have not added a QED and dismissed your point however, since I basically agree with you.
I'm more comfortable coming at it from a different angle. Philosophical Taoism (the school to which I belong) has a method which generally depends on observation, contemplation, and meditation. This is guided by a pedagogical method today generally labeled as "guided discovery". In this system there is no such thing as "holy books", "esoteric knowledge", or "revelation". Everything useful to know could be learned by almost any human being who had a desire to find out such things and an ability to see clearly. Of course that's a pretty small number of people, and learning unaided is very inefficient. But it's possible and people do it.
So would this method encounter "spiritual nature"? It does, if you want to think that way. More commonly, it is helpful to "translate" the terms you use to the concepts and language of Taoism. Taoism is the exploration of the meaning and implications of Tao in answering the question of "How should a wise person conduct their life and treat other people?" As Tao is by definition (First chapter of "Tao te Ching" begins "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao") undefinable, I am at the get-go at the exact same place you are when I question whether your discovering "spiritual nature" is a circular argument true by definition. It's both an end to logical inquiry and a beginning to understanding.
Replace "God" with "Tao" and I say the same thing. The key is that what you are getting at and Taoism are both experiential. They are not logical systems, although they are not incompatible with logic (which a lot of revelatory religion is!). I see water running downhill and surmise a principle that extends to thing other than fluid mechanics. I presume you do to. Something like this leads to laws of thermodynamics and concepts of entropy (although give the discussion up-thread I shudder to say that!). It also can lead to insights about human communication and interactions. To what can we attribute this relatedness if not to what you call "spiritual evidence"?
This is not to say that what you call "spiritual nature" and I call Tao are the same thing. They probably overlap without being identical. But I would venture that I could learn something from your experiences and how you process that information that is meaningful in my frame of reference. I certainly hope so.
Jamie
