• Daniel Ramli
    5
    Warning!: New user here and first discussion post.

    I hope to provide an argument that utilizes the prime principle of confirmation to show that objective beauty provides evidence in favor of the hypothesis of theism over that of atheism. I slightly “tune” (pun intended) Robin Collin’s Fine Tuning Argument, in which he utilizes the same format to demonstrate that the fine tuning of the universe provides evidence in favor of theism over atheism.

    First off, the prime principle of confirmation is a simple principle which essentially says, given “two competing hypotheses, H1 and H2, an observation, O, counts as evidence in favor of H1 over H2 if O is more probable under H1 than it is under H2” (taken directly from Collin’s Fine Tuning Argument)

    Using this principle, I submit the simple argument.

    The existence of objective beauty is not improbable under theism
    The existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism
    C. The existence of objective beauty provides strong evidence to favor the theism over atheism (prime principle)

    Support for the premise 1:
    I am operating under an impression of the Judeo-Christian God, when referring to theism, and thus God is an all-good, loving creator. If the world was created by a Creator God, then it seems very likely that, just as an artist does, God would create things that force us to say things like, “wow, that sunset is beautiful, something must have created that”. I know that I simply exert the existence of objective beauty, and to provide a quick explanation I’ll go with the sunset example again. Someone looking out over the ocean and seeing an incredible sunset will say it is beautiful, and I think we would say something is quite wrong with an individual that doesn’t acknowledge it as beautiful. In a similar way that humans have an intrinsic “thermometer” for moral values, humans seem to have this for beauty. Thus it is not at all surprising that we have a “beauty thermometer” under theism.

    Support for premise 2:
    Under the atheist hypothesis, it is generally accepted that different human attributes arise through the process of natural selection in order to maximize overall fitness of the individual. Thus, if humans have this “beauty thermometer”, for what purpose did this attribute arise? I see absolutely no reason for us attributing awe and wonder to something beautiful like a sunset, within a world where natural selection is the driving force. One could argue that attributing beauty to a mate or food or something in that order is a part of natural selection’s driving force, but taking something like a sunset or the milky-way in a clear sky, I see no evolutionary advantage. I could actually imagine situations where this would decrease our fitness! Imagine early humans entranced by the beauty of a sunset and, being distracted, become easier prey for other predators. Thus under atheism and namely the theory of how humanity has developed through natural selection, objective beauty is very improbable.

    Conclusion:
    From these two premises, if you accept them, apply the prime principle of confirmation and the result is that objective beauty provides strong evidence for theism, namely an all-good Creator.
  • Yohan
    679
    My view is basically that being, nature, reality, whatever we want to call the one thing that is everywhere, is "god"
    Here are some intuitions about the nature of reality:
    1. Reality is singular. One without a second.
    2. Reality is universal.
    3. Reality is self-existent (uncaused and independent)
    4. Reality can't be created or destroyed (it's eternal, in the timeless sense)
    5. Reality is unlimited. (infinite) (although its limited when we turn it into a concept)
    6. Reality is maximally simple and maximally complex
    7. Reality is perfect (if it were not, that would mean that reality somehow contradicts itself, which would be absurd.

    However, I do not mean the apparent dualistic time-bound phenomenological world, but the inherent essential absolute reality. (Maybe that is a word salad. Maybe not)
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    I don't see a whole perfect supernatural being to be beautiful. An object, like a perfect Platonic Form, can be beautiful. Contingent things as well. Poetry usually portrays the contingent, unless it's mystical
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    The beauty thermometer varies from person to culture. There is no standard. The reason we animals enjoy beauty is the same reason lions play: it reboots their battery
  • gaules
    6
    Anyone who sees the pictures of a beautiful woman at twenty and ninety immediately understands that Plato was right in saying that beauty is in form and not in matter, in the eternal and not in the corruptible. But the sight of the form dazzles, shakes and hypnotizes our material body in such a way that we are compelled to grasp it materially, which is as impossible as holding a stream of water in our hands.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Matter and form are one. Some people find a certain model beautiful, others find her rather odd looking
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    I hope to provide an argument that utilizes the prime principle of confirmation to show that objective beauty provides evidence in favor of the hypothesis of theism over that of atheism.Daniel Ramli

    Collin's so-called prime principle of confirmation notoriously provides spurious support. Collins tries to repair it with an injunction against ad hoc hypotheses. Whether or not that is a successful strategy for Collin's argument, your argument doesn't even attempt it: your God hypothesis is blatantly ad hoc, i.e. it presupposes everything you need to make your probability as high as you want it to be.
  • TVCL
    79
    This is a nicely presented, well made argument. Welcome to the Forum.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    A “brute fact” is beautiful. Did any of you watch the Land Before Time as a kid?
  • xinye
    16


    the argument of you provides some essential ideas, but I also want to add on something:

    your argument follows that,

    1, The existence of objective beauty is not improbable under theism
    2, The existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism
    C. The existence of objective beauty provides strong evidence to favor the theism over atheism (prime principle)

    for premise1, you seem to mean that under theism(especially Christianity), God is like an artist who designs beautiful scenes and then makes us to have a certain response toward that, in your example, when we’re watching the sunset, we are supposed to be impressed by its beauty and amazement, and “we would say something is quite wrong with an individual that doesn’t acknowledge it as beautiful(quote from you)”. I can relate this to be something that would happen but I don’t see why it is something that shows beauty is objective. Being aesthetically objective, relative to being aesthetically subjective, means that something can either be beautiful or not beautiful, depend on its intrinsic value, and it doesn’t change if we have different perspectives on it. However, people have radically different sense of beauty in real life, and objective beauty almost doesn’t exist. It is true that when watching the sunset, most of us will be in agreement that it’s beautiful, but what if it’s Duchamp’s art? It may result in that half of us think that’s good and half of us think that's bad, so what kind of message God’s trying to convey here is not clear. So having a “beauty thermometer” is only a partially correct idea.
    Also I don’t think that the cause of us to agree on some objective beauty (Michelangelo’s art is beautiful, puppies are cute, etc) is a direct evidence of God’s existence, because it probably has more to do with us sharing a common morality: we think Michelangelo’s art is beautiful because it portrays what’s holy and ideal, and holiness and ideality are what we think to be good and progressive(in your argument, you talked about morality as well so it may worth to think that is the “beauty thermometer” an evidence of the “moral thermometer” or an evidence of God himself).

    for premise2, it may also be somehow unconvincing to say that the existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism(especially under evolution theory). But I guess in this case you can also say that being able to appreciate beauty is evolutionary-oriented because it helps to practice and stimulate human’s sensory system so we can be more intelligent, and therefore more adaptive.

    I think you probably need more examples and reasonings for your argument because beauty is too much to be talked about!
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    I would like to add: why is the existence of "objective beauty" probable under theism? A Platonic theism, sure. But not all theisms. There are many forms. Hegel said we have a subjective mind and an objective mind. Maybe "God" likes the subjective much more than theists realize

    Lastly, the existence of objective beauty is not improbable under atheism. You can be a Platonist minus the lower "creature". You can be a Confucian of some sort. There are many ways of believing in objective beauty without positing a superpowerful Father figure who watches us constantly
  • freewhirl
    7
    The existence of objective beauty is not improbable under theism
    The existence of objective beauty is very improbable under atheism
    C. The existence of objective beauty provides strong evidence to favor the theism over atheism (prime principle)
    Daniel Ramli

    Although I understand where you are coming from with your argument, I don’t necessarily agree with premise 1. Maybe it would be smart to define objective beauty a little better. I believe that no matter what can be seen as beautiful, there is someone out there that can logically explain why said thing is not beautiful to them.

    Kant states, “The judgement of taste is therefore not a judgement of cognition, and is consequently not logical but aesthetically, by which we understand that whose determining ground can be no other than subjective.” (Kant 1790, section 1)

    I believe this quote is powerful because without a subjective response to something as beautiful, what’s the point of beauty? It looses the very thing that makes something beautiful, which is the personal connection to an object, scenery, or person that provides a more intimate view on the subject.
    On the topic of theism, let’s look into a biblical imagery that many Christians view as beautiful. In scripture, there are many references to the Lord as, “god the father,” and there are plenty of passages that are able to poetically describe God’s love towards his creation like a loving father would with his children. But what if the person reading the scripture grew up with an abusive father and consequently, isn’t able to identify with that imagery. Since this imagery is one of the foundations of Christianity (i.e. the Holy Trinity), not being able to view God as a father-like figure as beautiful can significantly distort the true characteristics of God that can be seen and good and righteous. I find it generous to genially find something objectively beautiful, let using that as a way to prove the existence of God.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.