|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 17, 2008 19:30:22 GMT -8
In The God Delusion Ricahards Dawkins dismisses what he calls the "argument from beauty" in about 1 1/2 pages. But the argument for theism he describes is really a straw dummy.
Dawkins relates how some Christians (or theists) say things like (paraphrase):
Beethoven* exists. Therefore God exists.
The idea here is that there are certain things that are so beautiful they must prove the existence of Creator God.
This isn't much of an argument, and Dawkin's writes it off.
However, he really doesn't even give more sophisticated versions of the argument a consideration.
I personally don't think the following argument is super compelling, but I think it does have some weight in the debate between atheism and theism, much more so than the straw dummy one Dawkins discusses.
The argument would be something like this:
There are things in the universe that are way more beautiful than they need to be from an evolutionary perspective. Why should this be in a completely materialistic, pragmatic cosmos?
Granted, one would have to attempt to demonstrate or disprove whether it is actually true that there really is beauty that serves no pragmatic purpose in the universe to analyze this argument well.
I, for one, find it entirely believable that such (nonpragmatic) beauty exists, and do think it is better explained by a Personal Creator than a Materialistic cosmos.
* or Shakespeare, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 18, 2008 1:30:51 GMT -8
In The God Delusion Ricahards Dawkins dismisses what he calls the "argument from beauty" in about 1 1/2 pages. But the argument for theism he describes is really a straw dummy. Dawkins relates how some Christians (or theists) say things like (paraphrase): Beethoven* exists. Therefore God exists. The idea here is that there are certain things that are so beautiful they must prove the existence of Creator God. This isn't much of an argument, and Dawkin's writes it off. However, he really doesn't even give more sophisticated versions of the argument a consideration. I personally don't think the following argument is super compelling, but I think it does have some weight in the debate between atheism and theism, much more so than the straw dummy one Dawkins discusses. The argument would be something like this: There are things in the universe that are way more beautiful than they need to be from an evolutionary perspective. Why should this be in a completely materialistic, pragmatic cosmos? Granted, one would have to attempt to demonstrate or disprove whether it is actually true that there really is beauty that serves no pragmatic purpose in the universe to analyze this argument well. I, for one, find it entirely believable that such (nonpragmatic) beauty exists, and do think it is better explained by a Personal Creator than a Materialistic cosmos. * or Shakespeare, etc... i think the most important question in this context is: what is beautiful and what isn't? I think that is completely in the eye of the beholder. I remember that a couple of years back, when I was in the USA for the first (and so far last) time, my mother invited us to a tourist-flight-trip over the Grand Canyon. It was one of those really small planes with space for, like, 20 passengers. It was a total blast. I was so awed. I used three films of my photocamera (back then digital cameras were still a luxory). To me, flying over the Grand Canyon was overwhelming, tremendously beautiful. But I remember there was a man sitting behind me complaining to his wife about the wasted money, for all he could see were stupid rocks. I'm saying beauty is relative. Some find Beethoven boring, others exciting. On a different note: our sensation of aesthetic isn't something permanent either. Look at the history of art. The ideal of the corpulent female body has been replaced by the ideal of slimness. On a third note: I haven't put much thought into this reasoning. Maybe it would be profitable if you named something that is more beautiful than it would have to be pragmatically. Something whichs beauty is acknoledged unanimously. On a fourth note: Keep in mind, that some things are beautiful because of very pragmatic reasons. Male peacocks for instance have those beautiful feathers in order to attrackt female peacocks. The same goes for many (if not most) specieses. The more beautiful, the more attractive, the more succesful the reproduction. Another pragmatic reason for beauty is camouflage. Some butterflies for instance have fine patterns on their wings wich look like eyes. www.bundjugend-brandenburg.de/neu/images/stories/diverses/schmetterling32.jpgwww.esperanza-tours.de/fotoalbum/ecuador/mindo/19.jpgBy this, they mislead their foes. It increases their chances of surviving. On a fifth note: Doesn't the assumption that the existence of beautiful things is due to a creator allow the counter hypothesis that the existence of hideous things is due to the nonexistence of a creator? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2008 21:00:53 GMT -8
First off, of course I recognize that much of what we call "beautiful" serves very pragmatic ends.
However, as you point out, the experience of beauty isn't always pragmatic:
This all serves my point all the more, don't you think? That beauty is relative further removes the experience of beauty from any biological, evolutionary imperative.
Before I answer this, tell me what you're meaning by "hideous things". Are you talking about evil or things like parasites?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 22, 2008 11:41:46 GMT -8
This all serves my point all the more, don't you think? That beauty is relative further removes the experience of beauty from any biological, evolutionary imperative. I don't understand that statement. Why does it serve your point? If there is no universal beauty, we can't assume that beauty is evidence for a designer in the sense of the "argument from beauty". Before I answer this, tell me what you're meaning by "hideous things". Are you talking about evil or things like parasites? By hideous I mean the antipode of beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 22, 2008 12:19:43 GMT -8
There is a universal experience of beauty.
More on the other part when I have time... (this is bookmarked)
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 22, 2008 13:01:27 GMT -8
There is a universal experience of beauty. More on the other part when I have time... (this is bookmarked) Didn't you just agree beauty is relative? Whatever! I think it is reasonably explainable why we find things beautyful. The argument from beauty is no compelling argument for the existence of a creator at all. I think we even agreed on this. I think we've got better topics to discuss. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by sonlyte on Aug 30, 2008 21:09:28 GMT -8
I think I see your point Josh about the experience of beauty being universal versus the objects of beauty. I used to think that beauty could be a good argument for a creator, but in my own walk of life, I have concluded that beauty enhances my view of God, but I do not look to the concept itself for support of that existence. To state it differently: Given that God exists, my experience of beauty gives me a tremendous appreciation of who he is. Now and then I really question his wisdom with some of creation - spiders for instance.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2008 21:32:50 GMT -8
Exactly. The objects of beauty are often relative, the experience is almost universal (or at least universal among all healthy humans).
I hear what you're saying, sonlyte.
Still, to both of you, I think there are experiences of beauty that go beyond satisfying materialistic/ evolutionary explanation.
For example, I don't see a compelling evolutionary reason that we should experience such joy and satisfaction at the sight of a sunset, or the way sunlight plays on the water. Of course one can say that sunlight and water are necessary for survival, but I'd counter that we certainly don't need such strong or intense reactions of awe to such things in order to serve some generalized biological imperative. The experience of beauty could be much weaker and still get the desired evolutionary result.
BTW, music is a great example of this. We seem hardwired for it, we experience instense satisfaction (sometimes verging on ecstasy) with it, yet whatever biological/survival need this might meet doesn't seem to square with the intensity of our passion for music.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 31, 2008 5:04:34 GMT -8
Exactly. The objects of beauty are often relative, the experience is almost universal (or at least universal among all healthy humans). Okay, I see what you mean here. I think I agree. Still, to both of you, I think there are experiences of beauty that go beyond satisfying materialistic/ evolutionary explanation. For example, I don't see a compelling evolutionary reason that we should experience such joy and satisfaction at the sight of a sunset, or the way sunlight plays on the water. Of course one can say that sunlight and water are necessary for survival, but I'd counter that we certainly don't need such strong or intense reactions of awe to such things in order to serve some generalized biological imperative. The experience of beauty could be much weaker and still get the desired evolutionary result. Be a little more creative. If you approach the experience of beauty from an evolutionary perspective, the right question would be: Is the ABILITY to experience beauty beneficial for the survival of the species? I think it is safe to say that being able to experience beauty and the joy connected to it, makes us strive for it. Let's stick to your example: Those of us, who don't live next to the sea, work hard in order to afford to experience the beauty of a sunrise over sea. The experince of beauty and the joys connected to it are a huge driving force for human creativity and human efforts. I think it is coherent that those who were able to experience beauty had an advantage in the progress of natural selection over those who were unable to experience beauty. The stronger your experience of beauty, the better. This is just a shoot from the hip. But it makes sense to me. Does this make sense to you? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 31, 2008 6:59:34 GMT -8
Josh wrote: I just watched the newer version of King Kong the other night...the ape really dug sunsets...we might have a link here. ;D Putting on the atheist hat for a second (ouch, this thing is tight  ), perhaps you could explore the idea of "memes" instead of genes as an explanation for the appreciation of beauty. I don't necessarily buy into the whole "meme" concept (what little I know about it), but it seems that different cultures at different periods appreciate different expressions of beauty. This is demonstrated by the different genre's and objects of art that spring up within a particular periods. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 1, 2008 1:34:30 GMT -8
Putting on the atheist hat for a second (ouch, this thing is tight ) haha, what hat could possibly fit such a pighead ;D ;D ;D perhaps you could explore the idea of "memes" instead of genes as an explanation for the appreciation of beauty. I don't necessarily buy into the whole "meme" concept (what little I know about it), but it seems that different cultures at different periods appreciate different expressions of beauty. This is demonstrated by the different genre's and objects of art that spring up within a particular periods. If you (any of you) have 15 spare minutes, I'd like you to watch the following video. It's professor and philosopher Daniel Dennett explaining memes. I think it will also make clear, that memes have nothing to do with atheism (even though Dannett is an atheist). Watch! |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 1, 2008 8:55:43 GMT -8
 Who you callin' a pighead? you wrote: You're right, bad choice of words. I believe the word was coined by Dawkins, wasn't it? I remember reading his explanation of them in one of his books or articles about 10 years ago (I think it was River out of Eden). He used the concept to assert that all religious ideas were merely "memes" that were designed to self-replicate and spread like a virus. I think the same could be said about Darwinism. We used to just call these "ideas" and say that "ideas have consequences". But, for some reason, there is now a whole field of study in "memetics". It kind of reminds me of Dianetics (Scientology...which oddly enough, is the ad attached to the video you linked.) There may be something to it, but like I said, I don't know if I necessarily buy into it because I don't know all the assertions that are made about them. Anyway, my point was that different expressions of beauty might be forms of these "memes". Not to derail the thread though. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 1, 2008 9:45:25 GMT -8
Darwinism is a meme just like religion, that is correct. Did you watch the video?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 1, 2008 17:57:07 GMT -8
Yes, I watched the video.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 1, 2008 21:53:01 GMT -8
Yes, I watched the video. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 2, 2008 9:16:01 GMT -8
It was interesting...especially the part about the ant. The explanation was pretty much what I remembered. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 3, 2008 2:50:01 GMT -8
It was interesting...especially the part about the ant. The explanation was pretty much what I remembered. Why? Just wanted to know what you thought about it, no hidden agenda. If you had said that it was waste of time I probably wouldn't post such videos anymore. It sounded to me as if you had reservations against the concept of memes because you thought that memes were something invented by Dawkins to make a case against religion. Maybe I got you wrong. From what I understand, the concept of memes is supposed to be an analogy to the gene. Just like the gene contains genetic information, the meme contains cultural information. This cultural information is passed on like a virus, but that doesn't mean that memes are always something negative. Christianity is a meme just like atheism. The fact that they are memes (if we wanna play the game and use the terminology), says nothing about the truth of their claims. The question of which are good memes and which are bad memes isn't the subject of memetics as Dennett explains. Memetics, like all other science, has to be neutral. If we assume that the concept of memes has its place, then the concept of beauty is a meme too. And as you correctly said, different cultures had different concepts of beauty. The idealization of the wilderness in the USA is one example. I can vaguely remember a seminar about wilderness and the American attitude towards it at the university. We had texts from the pilgrim and puritan time abhoring wilderness as a place where "non but devil's and their deciples" lived. If I'm not mistaken the romantization of wilderness began somewhere around the time of Emerson and Thoreau. That would be a rough example of how a new meme would replace another meme. |
|
), perhaps you could explore the idea of "memes" instead of genes as an explanation for the appreciation of beauty.