Beauty in the World Argument vs Atheism

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

Hi all, first post.... dont expect it to be great.

It seems that this forum contains a lot of 'scientific' atheists. Ill define this term for the purpose of discussion as those that believe in the basics of the big bang, darwinism, and most importantly randomness in the creation of the world as it stands today. The scientific athiest believes that there is no purpose behind events and processes, merely scientific fact, movement of electrons etc.

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.



I would appreciate any countering opinions and hope noone feels that I am condescending in my views, in claiming others are in denial I am simply expressing my beliefs about others beliefs, im not in any way trying to argue that I am right. Also if this has been discussed before links would be good.

[luckyme]

We're one of the more intelligent creatures on the planet, but I wonder what a dolphin or a giant octopus would think of that scene.
Scenes that dung beetles find attractive are rather different, but, hey, what do they know.

luckyme

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
to find some common ground on this simply look at Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johanssen, or Patrick Antonius

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never really understood how anyone can have a good understanding of biology yet make that argument



I mean, you are aware that there are animals out there that find this thing absurdly attractive, right?




(also, I wont go there, but I predict someone will post a genocide type picture, and ask if you feel that this was also planned by God)

[blutarski]

This is a subjective argument, and is an extension of faith. You can't prove that something is 'too' beautiful to have been created randomly- you either believe it is or it isn't.

Besides, I'm not sure how something that looks pleasing-even extremely pleasing-to the eye is proof of the existence of a higher power.

I'm sure smarter, better read people than me can talk about how culture helps to define beauty and how the brain looks for patterns that are familiar and/or pleasing.

Look at your picture. Geology teaches us about tectonic movement of the earth's crust and how mountains are formed. Meteorology shows us how mist, etc are formed. These are actions based on random events. Unless you want to go back to the days of saying that God directly causes the weather and the mountains to rise and fall.

[David Steele]

How about this image?:

[MidGe]

Heya ESKIMO,

The problem I have with your position is that it is a highly selective one. You see what you want to see to justify your belief and you ignore the rest.

When I am confronted with vistas such as on the photo you showed in your post, I cannot help myself, but being simultaneously aware that to achieve this beauty there is the support of an entire eco-system where teeming numbers of sentient beings, animal and human, are experiencing hideous suffering. This is my reasoning and why I am an atheist. That there may be a god, ok, whatever that is, but it is definitely is not moral, loving or intelligent and thus not worthy of any worship or obedience. Indeed, I see it more like, by accident of evolution, humanity is at a point where it may, I don't know if it will, but it may redeem god or nature.

[ChrisV]

[ 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... 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 ]

Most of us on SMP don't consider the way we feel about something to be a good pathway to truth. The idea that you can get at ultimate truth by consulting your feelings doesn't have a distinguished history.

[Neuge]

Your position relies on the assumption that the natural world, if not divinely created, has come about because of pure randomness. This is not true. The basis for this assumption seems to have evolved (lol irony) from the lay person's misconception of entropy. I have been meaning to write up a new thread about the perceived and actual nature of entropy since I started posting (infrequently) on this board. I'm too drunk right now to accomplish such a feat, but perhaps tomorrow I will.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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... 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 ]

Most of us on SMP don't consider the way we feel about something to be a good pathway to truth. The idea that you can get at ultimate truth by consulting your feelings doesn't have a distinguished history.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is, however, an argument that our sense of 'aesthetic beauty' can be a guide to learn more about who we are and why. Of course, it's a guide to evolutionary factors rather than, umm....silliness. But still...

[furyshade]

evolutionarily we find certain things beautiful because they are beneficial, certain features in women, men find attractive because they display better genetic traits. obviously that is a vestigial concept and a lot of things we see beauty and take pleasure in are left over from when they were crucial to survival.