Argument from beauty

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
God put humpback anglerfish in the deep sea and naked mole rats underground so mankind wouldn't have to look at their hideousness.

The argument from beauty is a common argument used by theists that appeals to the existence of beauty as a metaphysical property that can not be explained by materialistic mechanisms. They argue that beauty can only come from some supernatural omnipotent being such as their God. It is often used in the form where an individuals natural gifts are presented as an example of this supposedly divine beauty. Richard Dawkins gave the following summary of this form of argument in The God Delusion: 'How dare another human being make such beautiful music/poetry/art when I can't? It must be God that did it'.[1]

Contents

[edit] Problems

Had God designed the world, it would not be a world so frail and faulty as we see.
Lucretius

The biggest problem with the argument from beauty is that it ignores the fact that the perception of beauty is a psychological phenomenon that is easily described in terms of evolutionary principles and neurological models of sensory processing. Also it ignores all the non-beautiful and even down right disgusting things in the universe. Furthermore, there is no absolute standard of beauty and the idea of beauty is entirely subjective,[2] although we may have evolved to share many of our ideas of beauty in common. In this argument a connection between divine providence and that which is perceived as beautiful, whether it be natural beauty or a work of art, is simply assumed to be self evident. No one ever attempts to present the logic behind this argument, and if they did, they would more than likely be laughed out of the room.

[edit] Examples

Beautiful autumn leaves...
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

One example of the argument from beauty is to say that the autumn leaves are very beautiful, meaning that the trees on which they rest could not have been the product of "ugly" random chance. However, from the objective standpoint, the leaves' colors are simply variations in the wavelengths of light they reflect, and this does not imply a leaf designer any more that it implies the existence of Jack Frost; as evidence of this, a color-blind person would not be likely to infer the existence of God from the autumn leaves.

Another example of this argument is discussed in the first chapter of God is Not Great where a school teacher named Ms. Watts says 'So, you see children, how powerful and generous God is. He has made all the trees and grass to be green, which is exactly the color that is most restful to our eyes. Imagine instead if the vegetation was all purple or orange. How awful that would be'.[3] Hitchens realises, as should anyone with a basic knowledge of natural selection, that it is our eyes that are adapted to nature and not the other way around. We have simply evolved to perceive these common sights as something beautiful.

[edit] Related arguments

A related argument is the argument from female orgasm which contends that since a lack of sexual climax in (some unfortunate) women is not a hindrance to reproduction, the existence of the female orgasm in general can only be explained as the superabundant gift of a generous Creatrix. A similar but little-used argument notes that certain animals, such as foxes and pigs, have even longer orgasms than humans. The conclusion to this argument raises intriguing philosophical questions as to the beneficence, and number of legs, of the divine creator.

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion, 87
  2. Watch the movie Shrek if this point isn't completely obvious to you already
  3. Hitchens, C. God Is Not Great, 2
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support