Yes, I am precisely saying that my interior perception is of a spiritual being, with qualities of self- awareness and self- determination. Material mechanisms can yield neither. Matter cannot be self- aware for the simple reason that its processes are diffuse, and are never comprehended in a single point of awareness, and it cannot be self- determining because matter allows of two options: strict causality, and randomization. The idea of self- determination involves a self- moved mover, capable of selecting options presented to it in consciousness. That is why I characterize the godless universe as being devoid of personality, and replete with mere automata.
When I mention the introduction of notions of beauty and goodness, I am talking about the raw notions, without regard to their accuracy. As far as I know, even gang members have some notions of beauty and goodness, however primitive.
When I use the term "we", it is in reference to the "community of persons" I have already invoked, and is not, therefore, a retreat from objectivity, but a continuation of phenomenological description. Since the process of evaluation IS the perception of things as beautiful or good, whether objective or not, I have no idea what you were objecting too at that point.
If you do not see the connection between love and admiration, I will try to get back to it. Suffice it to say that it is rather like the sentiment we have for the protagonist in a novel or film, someone whom we perceive of as deserving and therefore "pull for". In the case of parents, they commonly perceive their children as "miracles", and develop the sentiment on that basis. But I already mentioned the case when one love something not for its own sake, but for the sake of something else. Caritas (agape), for example, as a Christian idea is the love of others because one love's God.
On the level of phenomenological description, there is no reason to distinguish between the perception of color, and the perception of goodness. I mention, beyond that, that we know that color is both objective and subjective, and it is possible to regard evaluation of beauty and goodness similarly. We have no basis for denying it, merely because opinions may differ. Just as knowledge is partly social, partly personal, and our comprehension of the material universe has improved over the centuries, differences in taste and conscience may very well reflect differences of refinement and adherence to the objective side.
As you amply demonstrate in the course of your earlier criticisms, the "scientific" point of view will not tolerate the assertion that we are spiritual beings, or that beauty and goodness are somehow objective qualities. It is idle to complain when I summarize your point of view. Now, automata may be "smart" (look at computers), and we may derive a purely subjective satisfaction from things, but it is the case that the "scientistic" world has no intrinsic meaning.
You have your explanation for belief, I have mine. I expected you to insist on yours.
"Making sense" is solely dependent on the point of view brought to a proposition. Something makes sense when it is congruent with what we perceive, know, and/or believe.
As I said, there is ample reason to think that our notion of God is refined along with our other notions, and therefore the more primitive ideas of God mean very little.
The reason that "some sort of deity" makes sense is that the world that we experience, as opposed to the abstraction presented by "scientism", is replete with meanings which we are trying to discover, and thus with a spiritual realm behind the material realm.......... |
