Beauty in the World Argument vs Atheism

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

also

to all - i appreciate many of the responses here, i definitely will be posting in this forum again. there are too many now to go through each, but a couple of general points:

1. i never mentioned god, im not sure where anyone got this from? purpose != god. purpose to me simply refers to the fact that there is something beyond a physical universe that gives meaning to our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
He is building an assumption of God into his definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

subfallen in particular i have no idea where you are getting this from, maybe reread my post? i only defined one term which was a paradigm and had nothing to do with the physical world.

2. im not suggesting that those mountains werent caused by natural processes, or that we dont find jessica alba attractive because of our libidos....

im saying that those explanations only explain the how, they do not explain the why. and the beauty in the result in my eyes at least is proof that there must be an answer to the 'why'.

finally,

m_theory - nice post. you basically understand what im saying and perfectly sum up the counterargument. thanks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
also

to all - i appreciate many of the responses here, i definitely will be posting in this forum again. there are too many now to go through each, but a couple of general points:

1. i never mentioned god, im not sure where anyone got this from? purpose != god. purpose to me simply refers to the fact that there is something beyond a physical universe that gives meaning to our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
He is building an assumption of God into his definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

subfallen in particular i have no idea where you are getting this from, maybe reread my post? i only defined one term which was a paradigm and had nothing to do with the physical world.

2. im not suggesting that those mountains werent caused by natural processes, or that we dont find jessica alba attractive because of our libidos....

im saying that those explanations only explain the how, they do not explain the why. and the beauty in the result in my eyes at least is proof that there must be an answer to the 'why'.

finally,

m_theory - nice post. you basically understand what im saying and perfectly sum up the counterargument. thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they DO explain the why, to varying degrees. Its not just that Jessica Alba is likely to have fit genes that makes her, specifically, more beautiful than other women. It is that 'being able to determine fitness by visual inspection,' in general, leads to the feeling of 'beauty appreciation' in human beings.

As Phil pointed out, a lot of these specific evolutionary rationales are really beside the point. The point isn't really the REAL reason, in detail, we recognize different types of beauty in different situations. The point is that, in general, we CAN come up with mundane explanations for them, if pressed.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I was suggesting otherwise do you? never heard of a twinkie taste bud.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I may have misunderstood you. I merely meant that your contention wouldn't seem to work in my case, since most of my survival-related childhood preferences would be like chicken/potatoes/corn/whatever.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I was suggesting otherwise do you? never heard of a twinkie taste bud.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I may have misunderstood you. I merely meant that your contention wouldn't seem to work in my case, since most of my survival-related childhood preferences would be like chicken/potatoes/corn/whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
The childhood point is evidence that to some extent tastes are aquired rather than built-in. On the nurture-nature axis, the ability to taste is nature, the ability to link tastes to good/bad senstations is nature but the link between the two is nurture.

Beauty might have a similar component though it seems a much more complicated phenomena.

chez

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
also

to all - i appreciate many of the responses here, i definitely will be posting in this forum again. there are too many now to go through each, but a couple of general points:

1. i never mentioned god, im not sure where anyone got this from? purpose != god. purpose to me simply refers to the fact that there is something beyond a physical universe that gives meaning to our lives.

[ QUOTE ]
He is building an assumption of God into his definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

subfallen in particular i have no idea where you are getting this from, maybe reread my post? i only defined one term which was a paradigm and had nothing to do with the physical world.

2. im not suggesting that those mountains werent caused by natural processes, or that we dont find jessica alba attractive because of our libidos....

im saying that those explanations only explain the how, they do not explain the why. and the beauty in the result in my eyes at least is proof that there must be an answer to the 'why'.

finally,

m_theory - nice post. you basically understand what im saying and perfectly sum up the counterargument. thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

any time that you make the argument that although we can explain "how", we cannot explain "why"...you are assuming that there is a "why"...and in this case, the very existence of a "why" is dependent on your conclusion being true.... if your theory posits that there is indeed a "why", that's fine, but there is not necessarily an answer to "why", so pointing out that a specific theory does not explain this "why" does not necessarily show a shortcoming of this specific theory..

...that's a bit confusing, but I'm too tired to explain it any other way.

the bottom line is that "why?" is not necessarily a valid question...and it generally assumes an intelligent motive behind actions..which is exactly what we are debating..so it cannot be an argument for your conclusion.

[Subfallen]

Post deleted by Subfallen

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...purpose != god. purpose to me simply refers to the fact that there is something beyond a physical universe that gives meaning to our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I apologize for accusing you of theism. Most people who argue for the supernatural are going in that direction, so it's kind of reflex.

However, I still contend that your position, as stated, is not even a meaningful objection to "scientific atheism." Perhaps it can become one, but right now we need look no further than your definition of "purpose" to see the fallacy:

[ QUOTE ]
something beyond the physical universe that gives meaning to our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if I, as a strict materialist, believe that nothing exists beyond the physical universe, I cannot allow you to begin with a definition that assumes I am wrong! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] First you must demonstrate that something cannot be satisfactorily explained in physical terms, and I don't see where you've tried to do that.

Edit - re-reading your posts, I'm not really confident I know where your premises end and your conclusion begins. Ignore this post if I'm not addressing anything relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why defining God before an argument is very important, yet so very rarely done.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

this is why defining God before an argument is very important, yet so very rarely done.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, comments like this (and others) don't add to the clarity either..

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

if scientific a-Theism is declared IMPOSSIBLE, a dichotomy has been created and if the writer isn't putting forth a Theist claim with that start and the mysterious 'purpose' thrown in then certainly readers are not cause of any confusion.

luckyme

[Subfallen]

Ok, I deleted that post because I'm now certain I don't see any argument at all, only an collection of emotionally compelling ideas that seem to be defined in terms of each other.

Something like: "humans have an aesthetic sense that recognizes 'beauty,' which is a quality existing in nature for the 'purpose' of stimulating the aesthetic sense. Clearly this can only mean something supernatural is afoot."

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

this is why defining God before an argument is very important, yet so very rarely done.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, comments like this (and others) don't add to the clarity either..

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

if scientific a-Theism is declared IMPOSSIBLE, a dichotomy has been created and if the writer isn't putting forth a Theist claim with that start and the mysterious 'purpose' thrown in then certainly readers are not cause of any confusion.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to clarify anything...Eskimo made a post referencing "purpose"...other posters, including myself, took that to mean some type of god because it seems to imply an intelligence behind things..that seems to be a common description of a god....

FWIW..every time I make a post concerning a god, I try to define what specifically I am talking about..unless I find a strict definition unnecessary..in those cases, I tend to say something to the effect of..."any typical view of what a god is would hold"

I suppose it wasn't necessary for Eskimo since he wasn't actually referencing what he consider to necessarily be a god..but I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't know that his description would lead most of us to believe that that is what he was talking about..

I would still, however, like a difinition of "purpose" since it doesn't seem to fit with his argument..Eskimo, why does something that you find beautiful indicate a "purpose"..what is that purpose? I assumed that your were simply arguing that it was designed by an intelligent being..that at least made some sense to me.