Beauty in the World Argument vs Atheism - Page 3

tisthefire · #21 03-11-2007, 03:01 PM

i don't really understand how displaying a bunch of explained things that are pretty prove that they were actually caused by something other than the explaination, as for attractive women, we're attracted to characteristics that indicate higher estrogen levels which indicates higher fertility because people who were attracted to that were more likely to reproduce, the nature scene shows me a myriad of things that we have also already explained, why does this mean i should believe in god?

Piers · #22 03-11-2007, 03:06 PM

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Aesthetic appreciation of beauty is the result of natural selection. It is not too difficult to see why it would be an evolutionary benefit for a species to have it.

Basically if something is ideal for us, it appears beautiful, while conversely if it is bad for us it is likely to appear ugly or disgusting. Seeking after beauty is just another way our mind has evolved to enhance our survival chances.

So back to your picture, it looks beautiful because we have been evolved to find it beautiful, not because any intrinsic property of the picture itself.

jogger08152 · #23 03-11-2007, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Basically if something is ideal for us, it appears beautiful, while conversely if it is bad for us it is likely to appear ugly or disgusting. Seeking after beauty is just another way our mind has evolved to enhance our survival chances.

So back to your picture, it looks beautiful because we have been evolved to find it beautiful, not because any intrinsic property of the picture itself.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about photographs of things like the eagle nebula? (Example.)

Is it beautiful? I think so. Does my perception of its beauty offer me evolutionary advantages? Doubt it.

Other possibilities exist to explain my perception; perhaps other human evolutionary advantages incorporate perception of beauty as a neutral characteristic that has come along for the ride without impacting survivability (as, for instance, genes selecting for brown hair vs. red hair); or maybe evolution determined that animals who could think but who couldn't appreciate beauty had less to live for and therefore less motivation to survive and/or propogate.

Regardless, "beautiful = good" doesn't wash. Certainly this principle doesn't extend to the sense of taste. Otherwise GNC would sell nothing but Dr. Pepper and Twinkies.

-J

pokerbobo · #24 03-11-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the sheer aesthetic pleasure in many things we see today disprove this theory as they contain too much 'beauty' to have been created through random scientific process. Regardless of the logical arguments that can be made with regards to patterns, desires etc, i feel that the degree of appreciation we feel deep down when we view certain things in the world today could not possibly have been made at random... to find some common ground on this simply look at Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johanssen, or Patrick Antonius if you swing that way =P

This is highly simplistic, yet it is the main reason why I have always found scientific atheism to be an impossible theory, and one of the key reasons why since the dawn of time people have looked for religion and stories to explain it.

I also can not believe, and consider those that say they do to be in at least some form of denial, that images like the one below were created at random and without purpose.

[/ QUOTE ] Look at Rosie Odonnell, does she prove the existance of the devil....does god have a brother whos a chubby chaser and rosies for him? How about the billions of people who are not famous? Only 1% of them are in the "Alba beauty class" does this mean God screws up 99 percent of the time?

Dont forget that the scientific forces of nature that created those mountains in your picture (plates moving into each other) cause earthquakes and tsunamis and other violent natural events. So the beauty you see in those mountains came at a price for all living things near it during thier creation.

Piers · #25 03-11-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What about photographs of things like the eagle nebula? (Example.)

Is it beautiful? I think so. Does my perception of its beauty offer me evolutionary advantages? Doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s just the ability to find things beautiful that is an advantage.

Finding the eagle nebula beautify is just a kind of overshoot.

[ QUOTE ]
or maybe evolution determined that animals who could think but who couldn't appreciate beauty had less to live for and therefore less motivation to survive and/or propogate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral's another factor.

jogger08152 · #26 03-11-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Except for David Steele. The point that some things are ugly is irrelevant. The point that we assign beauty to things we like is irrelevant. The right answer is that processes that are virtually random or that are following a very simple rule often do create beauty. Mountains are good examples. There are 100 million people out there who know about Mandelbrot, Lorenz and Feigenbaum. How come you guys don't seem to?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not that I find Eskimo-Sickness's reasoning conclusive, but how is it you believe a "simple" process of design (if that's what it is) rebuts the existence of the designer? Presumably you don't doubt Michaelangelo's existence because all it took to sculpt David was a chisel and a stone block?

chezlaw · #27 03-11-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, "beautiful = good" doesn't wash. Certainly this principle doesn't extend to the sense of taste. Otherwise GNC would sell nothing but Dr. Pepper and Twinkies.

[/ QUOTE ]
both of which taste pretty disgusting to me. There are suggestions that its not that we are prewired in some way to like/dislike the taste of what we eat but rather we tend to like the taste of things we ate when young (and survived and hence is good).

Then it would be the ability to distinguish tastes and link them to some sensation of like/dislike that is advantagous.

chez

jogger08152 · #28 03-11-2007, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How about this image?:

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

It's beautiful, but only because of the nipples.

-Jogger

jogger08152 · #29 03-11-2007, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, "beautiful = good" doesn't wash. Certainly this principle doesn't extend to the sense of taste. Otherwise GNC would sell nothing but Dr. Pepper and Twinkies.

[/ QUOTE ]
both of which taste pretty disgusting to me. There are suggestions that its not that we are prewired in some way to like/dislike the taste of what we eat but rather we tend to like the taste of things we ate when young (and survived and hence is good).

Then it would be the ability to distinguish tastes and link them to some sensation of like/dislike that is advantagous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Pepper, Twinkies, and other sweets made up a very small proportion of the food I ate when I was young. (Thanks Mom!) I think I just like the taste of 'em.

-J

m_the0ry · #30 03-11-2007, 04:34 PM

Beauty is order. The more order in a system the more beautiful it is. Using the analogy of perception as a lens, different persons have different perceptions of beauty. This is the study of aesthetics. Contrary to popular belief beauty can be objectively quantified by considering the degrees of freedom in a system. There are no metaphysical properties of beauty. You live in a world where your surroundings are incredibly ordered on the cosmic scale. It is no wonder that beauty is ubiquitous. This does not imply a deity but it does imply that we are in a very special place.

As an atheist I find more spiritual gratification in saying, "I live in a very special place," than explaining the specialness of my surroundings in terms of metaphysical properties (which includes deities).