Theological Opinions , PART II

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All our five senses are so, so wonderful. Visible light is astoundingly wonderful. The artistic beauty of the universe all has the fingerprint of a magnificent Creator on it.

Or more likely our universe has its fingerprint on us since we are a product of it. We evolved within it. So of course we are going to evolve to recognize its "beauty". But of course beauty is simpy an expression of mathematics when it comes down to it. We evolved to recognize the patterns that define the universe and call some of them "beauty".

[Lief Erikson]

I hope very strongly BB can see this . . . BB, your PM box is full again!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or more likely our universe has its fingerprint on us since we are a product of it. We evolved within it. So of course we are going to evolve to recognize its "beauty".

That doesn't make sense. The vast majority of what we recognize as beautiful, we gain nothing at all from recognizing as beautiful. There are of course a few things that there is a great deal of benefit to us recognizing as beautiful. Mates, specifically . But as for the universe . . . what benefit is it to me if I think the ocean is beautiful?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That doesn't make sense. The vast majority of what we recognize as beautiful, we gain nothing at all from recognizing as beautiful. There are of course a few things that there is a great deal of benefit to us recognizing as beautiful. Mates, specifically . But as for the universe . . . what benefit is it to me if I think the ocean is beautiful?

It's not about benefit, it's about familiarity, feeling comfortable. Someone who spent their whole life in the Sahara might find oceans terrifying at first sight. And if you grew up as the son of a junkyard attendent or a mortician, you view of "beauty" might be completely different.

[Insidious Rex]

Plus my point was that we are a PRODUCT of the universe. We came FROM the universe. So its mathematical laws apply to us as much as it applies to quasars and the grand canyon and super novas and water falls and Angelina Jolie in a bikini... And we recognize these patterns as "beauty" and yes there is an evolutionary reason to recognize beauty no matter what the beauty is. Its not just about getting mates.

But as BJ says (and as the saying goes) beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And it comes from within not from without. Its a superimposition of our fundamental make up on the structure of the universe steered by culture and intelligence.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not about benefit, it's about familiarity, feeling comfortable.

Loads of things still seem grotesque and ugly to us, in spite of familiarity. Many species of insects and worms strike people's ugly button, for example. Many people find industrial centers (especially polluted, older ones) or sewer systems (again, especially older ones) to be very ugly. Familiarity doesn't change that. People adjust and get used to it often, but they only very, very rarely find that kind of setting beautiful.

So I really have trouble believing that beauty is about familiarity.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Someone who spent their whole life in the Sahara might find oceans terrifying at first sight.

Humans are very often afraid of the unknown, whether the unknown be some element of nature or something else. After they get over their fear though, they won't necessarily find whatever they're now familiar with to be beautiful- unless it's nature.

For example, I used to be really unnerved by crowds. Now I'm not so unnerved by crowds, because I'm more familiar with them. However, I still don't find them beautiful. Other people feel differently- some people do find crowds beautiful.

And about some things, no matter how many people see them and no matter how familiar with them they are, almost everyone finds them ugly. A pond full of sewage, for example. Only a very, very small minority, even among those familiar with the sight, would find that beautiful. The contents of a full toilet would be another example of something the vast majority consistantly finds ugly, in spite of very, very great familiarity. One would think that if familiarity brought appreciation of beauty, the vast majority would be drawing pictures of their excrament.

But about most aspects of nature, only very, very few people find them ugly. Stars, the sun, and the moon are found to be incredibly beautiful by almost everyone. Waterfalls, trees, rocks, the fields, the flowers, the elements of nature and the colors are found incredibly beautiful, with almost no voice of dissent. People who go to the mountains for the first time or out camping are often hooked because of the astounding beauty they encounter that is wholly new to their eyes. Some get scared, like you say, but the vast majority find it all lovely.

Is all this appreciation of nature just because we're all familiar with nature? Not likely. Photos of the galaxies have the same appeal to us, and things seen through the microscope often too, even though they're all new to our eyes.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And if you grew up as the son of a junkyard attendent or a mortician, you view of "beauty" might be completely different.

Of course appreciation of beauty differ some from person to person. The fact though that whether you're a junkyard attendant or a mortician's son, you'd still be able to appreciate the beauty of nature, is telling.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Plus my point was that we are a PRODUCT of the universe. We came FROM the universe. So its mathematical laws apply to us as much as it applies to quasars and the grand canyon and super novas and water falls and Angelina Jolie in a bikini... And we recognize these patterns as "beauty" and yes there is an evolutionary reason to recognize beauty no matter what the beauty is. Its not just about getting mates.

You haven't explained why we recognize these patterns as beauty, though brownjenkins has offered an explanation. Neither have you explained why it should be expected (or at least should be found unsurprising) that we find the universe and nature almost all beautiful, but so many other things in life (largely things that come from us) ugly. You say "there is an evolutionary reason," but that doesn't explain the coincidence that we should see the universe and world as beautiful, but find so much else that we're totally familiar with to be ugly.

People decide to live in the country often because of the greater beauty and scenery there. People like to live on coastline often partly because of the close proximity to beauty. People like to live downtown in the city because friends are there or it's close to work- not because of beauty. Beauty is plainly seen in nature, but outside of nature, there's much more debate over what is beautiful and what isn't.

The art of nature indicates an artist. Just as a complex painting considered beautiful by many implies a skilled human artist, so the complex nature considered beautiful by almost everyone implies a skilled divine artist.

We differ about human art, but not about the mastery of the divine art.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But as BJ says (and as the saying goes) beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And it is universally beheld in most aspects of the world in a state of nature, but is far from universally beheld in things made by humans. Why?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And it comes from within not from without. Its a superimposition of our fundamental make up on the structure of the universe steered by culture and intelligence.

I'm not arguing that appreciation of beauty comes from outside of us . Neither am I arguing it isn't evolutionary, or something hardwired into our species. But nature is appreciated and considered beautiful almost universally, while for so many other things in life, some people think they're beautiful and others disagree. This makes sense only if one believes that nature is crafted by an artistic God.

[Insidious Rex]

Thats really poor "if then" thinking lief. Just because some people perceive the sky as pretty doesnt mean its gods equivalent of a work of art. We can explain WHY the sky looks the way it does. Down to the very last subatomic molecule. It makes SENSE it looks that way to us. And furthermore its not simply because of the nature of the sky itself but ALSO because of the nature of how we perceive things. Whats the point of creating the sky in such a way that humans will like it? Or creating something in humans that makes them like the sky? Whats the point of that exactly.

We have the ability to both be attracted to and not be attracted to many things in our environment. I reject the notion that most things are universally loved or hated by the way. There are cultures that think mud is wonderful stuff. Here we think its icky. Black sludge made from dead organisms would seem awful to most people. To many oil companies its beautiful stuff because it makes them rich. And do you want me to even get into what many many MANY people consider edible food in other cultures? You probably dont...

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. And this makes evolutionary sense because it allows us to both be attracted to and to avoid things based on their benefit to us. You could certainly come up with all sorts of possibilities as to why we find the sky and the stars "beautiful" (and nevermind that thats certainly not universal). It could be a reflection of innate mechanism within us all to be curious and be attracted to things beyond us because we may benefit from what we find there (thats the signature of our species after all). It could be a reflection of our instinct to communicate by use of the natural patterns of the universe which we do through the various arts. Communication is helpful in our species so therefore it would make sense for it to be reinforced with the desire to express ourselves through art. It could be a variety of common sense things. But to say we are preprogrammed to appreciate a laundry list of things in the universe by a programming entity seems farcical to me and makes me want to ask the obvious question: why? Whats the point? Doesnt it make much more sense that these kinds of instincts would occur naturally? Monkeys appreciate certain pictures over others. Even dogs do. Does that mean that they were programmed by god to appreciate a picture of a rock over a picture of a bus? No that makes no sense.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Sorry, but I love the Far Side.

You really hafta.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We can explain WHY the sky looks the way it does. Down to the very last subatomic molecule. It makes SENSE it looks that way to us.

I'm not arguing that the calculations of the sky don't add up or make sense. I'm arguing that if the calculations had come out slightly differently, the sky would have been rendered unattractive. There is a large chance element in the universe too. The calculations for the vast majority of the different facets of the universe only had to be slightly different to make them empty of beauty. Even animals just becoming really, really hungry or sick and becoming unnatural to look upon in that way can make them look horrible.

Nature is almost always exceedingly beautiful, but nature that has been tampered with, or unnatural conditions for the natural (like starvation or being overfed for animals or people of either sex), often make them look horrible. It doesn't take much artificial tampering for nature to lose its beauty, but most of nature is incredibly beautiful and glorious when it is natural and untampered with.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And furthermore its not simply because of the nature of the sky itself but ALSO because of the nature of how we perceive things. Whats the point of creating the sky in such a way that humans will like it? Or creating something in humans that makes them like the sky? Whats the point of that exactly.

Perhaps God likes us? Another reason would be that God wants to reveal to us some of what he is like.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We have the ability to both be attracted to and not be attracted to many things in our environment.

Particularly in our human-made environment. Opinions about paintings differ broadly for instance, according to taste. Outside of what is created by man though, agreement about beauty is much more universal. That is because the artistic stroke of the master is there at work.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I reject the notion that most things are universally loved or hated by the way.

That's not my notion. The feelings about the beauty of human-made things vary dramatically. However, I do feel that most attitudes toward whether or not aspects of nature are beautiful vary very little.

Furthermore, things that come together by random chance in the world of humans are almost never viewed as beautiful. They sometimes are, but random chance usually ends up appearing like just a mess, and not a beautiful mess either. People don't throw things around and find beauty in the new arrangement, most of the time. And the more different elements you add into the mess, the uglier the mess gets.

The same should be true of the universe. In the universe, there are near endless factors involved in this huge random mess. It should look really, really disgusting and ugly, not glorious and beautiful.

The response argument you've been making is that we're part of the mess, and that makes a difference. A child playing in the mud has a very different perspective from his mother watching him. However, the child is not arguing that the mud he's splashing around is beautiful. He's just arguing that it's fun! There's a big difference. It's beauty we're talking about, and that doesn't change whether the calculations apply to you too or whether you're entirely outside of them. Trust me, I've been in my share of messes and they weren't "beautiful," though they were very fun .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

There are cultures that think mud is wonderful stuff. Here we think its icky.

You're mixing concepts here. Many cultures think mud is wonderful because they find the stuff very darn useful. That doesn't mean they'd decorate their houses with it of their own choice. We don't find mud useful, but our views don't differ about mud's appearance very dramatically from other cultures.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Black sludge made from dead organisms would seem awful to most people. To many oil companies its beautiful stuff because it makes them rich.

Again, you're mixing up utility and beauty. Black sludge isn't useful to me, so all I see about it is its appearance. I doubt that someone in an oil company likes the sludge's appearance, but they connect its appearance with money, and so they have a different reaction. It's not like they'd want to live in a sludge pit. They'd want to live in a mansion. It's about the money, Insidious, not about the sludge. If their thoughts were only focused on the sludge's physical appearance, they wouldn't have any different of views than the rest of us do about it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And do you want me to even get into what many many MANY people consider edible food in other cultures? You probably dont...

No I don't, because it's off-topic. I'm talking about beauty, not taste buds.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, in the eye, not the wallet or the mouth. I'm not talking about "what makes us happy", but about what appears beautiful to our eyes.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And this makes evolutionary sense because it allows us to both be attracted to and to avoid things based on their benefit to us. You could certainly come up with all sorts of possibilities as to why we find the sky and the stars "beautiful" (and nevermind that thats certainly not universal).

Even Red Giants have their own beauty about them, though it is somewhat diminished at that stage. But that diminished stage only comes right before the most wonderfully beautiful stage of all, the supernova! There's a lesson there too, I think. Death that brings rise to new life . . . it's a Christian concept. It's also like the lesson of forest fires. Trees get old and dry and sometimes lose some of their beauty toward the end, but then when they are destroyed in forest fires, they are reborn very quickly in new beauty and life. That's a lesson taught in more parts of nature too, methinks. (Gets thoughtful) Oh well, not important to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It could be a reflection of innate mechanism within us all to be curious and be attracted to things beyond us because we may benefit from what we find there (thats the signature of our species after all).

I don't think that theory makes sense at all. The converse to it is that we would find unattractive things that are likely to be harmful to us, but the things that are unattractive to us are often completely harmless. Mud, for instance. Spiders. Cockroaches. Pimples. Many of the things I find ugly aren't bad for me and wouldn't hurt me. On the other hand, things that I find beautiful, such as wolves, could hurt me far more easily. Wolves in the past, you know, were far more savage toward humans than modern wolves. Yet beautiful they remain. Even people of the past probably would have found them beautiful if they could have gotten past the danger-factor of wolves' existence. Wolves were dangerous to them, and that's what the hunters paid attention to. The beauty would have been definitely secondary in their minds, though not impossible to appreciate. I like Great White sharks a lot for example and think they're beautiful, even though they're very dangerous.

Many major carnivores are absolutely beautiful, dangerous though they would have been to humans in the past. Many nondangerous insects are far less beautiful. So beauty doesn't seem to relate to benefit/harm.

However, whether the appreciation of beauty does come from that or not doesn't really matter to me anyway. What matters more is the point that this doesn't explain why humans have enormous variance in their opinions of what is beautiful- except about nature. About God's work, everyone is agreed that almost all of it is beautiful.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It could be a reflection of our instinct to communicate by use of the natural patterns of the universe which we do through the various arts. Communication is helpful in our species so therefore it would make sense for it to be reinforced with the desire to express ourselves through art.

Again, that would still leave unexplained why almost all the universe is beautiful to all of us without disagreement, while most man-made things are very debatable. Why would people have such variety in their views about what's beautiful at so many points, but not about nature?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It could be a variety of common sense things. But to say we are preprogrammed to appreciate a laundry list of things in the universe by a programming entity seems farcical to me and makes me want to ask the obvious question: why? Whats the point? Doesnt it make much more sense that these kinds of instincts would occur naturally?

I'm not trying to say that these instincts didn't evolve into us. I am claiming that it doesn't make sense for humans to be all agreed that almost all nature is beautiful, and also almost all agreed on what those beautiful parts of nature are, but disagreed about so many other things.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Monkeys appreciate certain pictures over others. Even dogs do. Does that mean that they were programmed by god to appreciate a picture of a rock over a picture of a bus? No that makes no sense.

It's plain that humans have differing views of manmade art. Why shouldn't animals?

[Hasty Ent]

I have to take issue with the notion that "almost all the universe is beautiful to all of us without disagreement, while most man-made things are very debatable." This is just a numbers game, imo. There are as many differing opinions about what in nature is beautiful as there are about paintings. And just because more people find the ocean beautiful vs a city is not sufficient, for me. I believe that it's all opinion that was formed by environment.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

I have to take issue with the notion that "almost all the universe is beautiful to all of us without disagreement, while most man-made things are very debatable." This is just a numbers game, imo.

The number of people who find a painting beautiful matters. The number of people who find the universe beautiful matters. It is a strong indicator that this is really good art and not a random mess.

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

There are as many differing opinions about what in nature is beautiful as there are about paintings.

*Disagrees.* But you're welcome to your own opinion, of course.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The number of people who find a painting beautiful matters. The number of people who find the universe beautiful matters. It is a strong indicator that this is really good art and not a random mess.

Using a popularity index for beauty implies only popularity, not "this is really good art." You may as well use a popularity index for determining great literature, or music, or anything at all. Societies, cultures, develop their own systems for determining beauty as well as value and morality. Those systems, in turn, are based on environmental factors. You know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, eh? And those 'eyes' develop differently from culture to culture.

[Lief Erikson]

Yet the impression of virtually everyone in every culture has been that nature is beautiful . That would include the people who make systems for determining beauty.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't think that's so. It would probably be fair to say that the impression of a large proportion of people in every culture has been that nature is beautiful, but not 'virtually everyone'.

[Lief Erikson]

Some people are too self centered to think about anything but themselves, and thus go through the world blind to all art, from nature to paintings, etc. I think the vast majority of children are too immature to enjoy art, and there are some adults who never grow up either.

But I think that discounting people who have no appreciation for any beauty whatsoever, virtually everyone does appreciate the beauty of nature.

Maybe I should take a poll at college and see what people's views are on what things are beautiful. It might make an interesting evidence.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Now, that again I disagree with. Mind now, I'm hardly a big fan of children, but I think a relatively unbiased view and an ability to appreciate at least certain forms of beauty is one of the merits more common among younglings than among us.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, as a child, I didn't appreciate the beauty of nature at all. How about you?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I did, and I haven't grown out of it, though perhaps I've put it a little bit to the side.

[Hasty Ent]

Leif wrote:

Yet the impression of virtually everyone in every culture has been that nature is beautiful . That would include the people who make systems for determining beauty.

But not the same 'nature' nor the same 'beauty.' There is some consistency in that what provides us with food, shelter, water and other types of comfort has become associated with 'beauty,' but that's a learned behaviour. That feeling of comfort, whether psychological or physical, drives the development of belief systems. Just my opinion, and I'm aware you'll never agree. I'll go back to lurking, now.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

But not the same 'nature' nor the same 'beauty.' There is some consistency in that what provides us with food, shelter, water and other types of comfort has become associated with 'beauty,' but that's a learned behaviour. That feeling of comfort, whether psychological or physical, drives the development of belief systems. Just my opinion, and I'm aware you'll never agree. I'll go back to lurking, now.

And snow also gives me comfort, I suppose .