Beauty as God

In Yesterday’s Blog Post, I asked if the fact that all creatures with brains and eyes have some innate and individual sense of beauty is evidence of God. For the most part, believers said yes or maybe, and non-believers asked what is wrong with me.

In fairness, I didn’t develop that question enough for it to make sense. I was operating on insufficient sleep. I’ll take another crack at it. You might be surprised how well this comes together. Or not.

If there is a God, I have hypothesized before that it could be the expression of a single and original universal law of nature so powerful that all the other rules of physics spring from it. And all the anthropomorphic qualities that believers often ascribe to God are only different descriptions of that one universal law. It would be fair, albeit imprecise language, to say this God of universal law is omnipotent and loving and the creator of everything.

I observed that people are attracted to particular mates based on individual concepts of beauty. But they are also attracted to certain styles of clothes, cars, music and so on. We see beauty in lots of things. And we observe that gravity and magnetism and other natural forces are some form of attraction. Every bit of reality is experiencing some form of attraction to some other bits of reality.

Human attraction feels entirely different from gravity. But remember that all the laws of physics seem entirely different from each other, but there has long been a belief they could all be explained or connected by a so-called unified field theory.

Consider how evolution explains both the human eye and a bird’s wing. Those two things seem completely unrelated to each other, but spring from the same underlying set of rules. As with that example, I am asking if the pervasiveness of our preferences for beauty springs from the same force as gravity and magnetism, to name just a few examples. All seem to be a related to attraction.

If the universe did not have a natural preference for attraction over separateness, then animals would not look for food, people would not procreate, and planets would not orbit. Even evolution springs from this most basic of forces. Without attraction, no creatures would produce offspring.

Attraction, which we humans usually interpret as beauty in our daily lives, is perhaps the most universal of all the laws. Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all? And if so, can one be forgiven for labeling it God?

Comments

[himself6]

Hmm,
they should rather join http://www.lookoftheyear.com
and perhaps earn some real money

:-)

[Vinod]

"Attraction, which we humans usually interpret as beauty in our daily lives, is perhaps the most universal of all the laws. Is it a stretch to suppose that attraction is the hypothetical one most basic and original law of all?"

Ok even if I grant you that what has it to do with god??? Seems pretty random to get god in there just to stir up something, no?

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark

Further to my comment that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out that this universe couldn't have gotten here by itself, and to your characterization of God as a 'capricious beard in the sky':

Darwin, you people's capricious beard on the ground, said himself in a letter be wrote:

"...the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God"

I'll go with Darwin on that one...

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark says:
"I
Don't
Have
To [prove evolution]
Neither
Does Anyone Else

So stop asking."

Mark, my 'capricious beard in the sky' says, 'OK, but don't ask me to believe evolution is not a load of unscientific rubbish, either.' And He did mention you need to fix your word wrap...Kay, Bye!

[Carl]

You're awesome, but this post is deceptive. You're not asking if beauty is god, or can be proof of god, or whatever. You're asking if god can be defined as beauty. Which it can, but by then you're using words and concepts so loosely that they become completely vague and unable to carry meaning. (They also become difficult to dispute, which may be why discussions of god often go in this direction)

[LegioNofZioN]

for Michael,
"That's a pretty big IF statement there. As far as I can tell faith causes more negatives"

its not a big If statement to many of us. If it works for you, if you and your family prosper through it, if the quality of your interactions with your parents and children are improved then the individual will stay, and if it does not the individual goes. It's the ultimate marketplace of ideas, and when it works for you, people stick with "it".

Faith in God and in particular Christian teaching brought my father from a third world Caribbean country to Canada. It kept my father (an amazingly good looking 65 yr old) with my mother despite his cultural differences that bred in him the desire to leave. From a Christian perspective he chose his oath to God and our family to keep our family together and to help bring his brothers and their families to Canada also. Faith is so intertwined in our lives and perspective that its positives greatly outweigh any negatives in our experience.

I do not for a second think everyone else is the same, at least as far as believers go. Faith inspires our charity inwardly and outwardly - it guides our movements so that when we are off the track others can help us see how far off the road we are. We aren't perfect, but we try to be, and that is the benefit of faith, the constant struggle within to be better than you are. Faith may not be your answer, but it is mine, and I have a lifetime of experience to prove it.

[Crawford]

Be still...

[Mark]

[Um...Dave? In your checkers program you imposed order (rules) on chaos. You acted like a god;
Posted by: Tammy]

So God is just a program.

God is

E=mc^2

or

g=Gm1m2/r^2

etc.

If that is all God is, then why is the Bible considered the word of God and not "Principia Mathematica"?

[Mark]

[On the contrary, it is you who should not require proof of me for my faith. Anyway, if you would follow your conscience instead of just your intellect, you might see the whole world differently, Spock.

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

In short, "No, I don't have to".

No wonder you believe in a capricous Beard In The Sky.

I do not have to prove to YOU that evolution is true and that the theory of evolution is the best and closest explanation of how it happens. I do not have to prove that God doesn't do it.

I
Don't
Have
To
Neither does anyone else.

So stop asking.

[Michael]

"whats wrong with having faith in something if its positive ?"

That's a pretty big IF statement there. As far as I can tell faith causes more negatives.

[Dave Oblad]

For Tammy and Steven M.

I have proven on many previous posts to this Blog, that an infinite number of
universes do exist, without a Creator. Each can be just as grand and diverse
as this one we live in. Being a programmer, I have explored some of them on a
microscopic scale. But I have also created a few myself. For this reason, I must
AGREE that this universe could have been created by a superior intelligence.

I have always had the stance that this universe COULD have been created by a God.

Where I do draw the line is the ridiculous God described by the old scriptures.
I just don't see God as a petulant wrathful paranoid mass murderer. Sorry!
And I'm in good company too.. that's also what Jesus taught!

Now.. someday, not too long from now, the Church will have to concede Evolution
as it had to give up the Earth-Centric view. If the Church had any brains, it
would embrace evolution as the tool designed into the DNA by God, to allow it's
creations the ability to adapt to changing conditions in habitat and fellowship.

Now that's a smart God. The kind of God I can get behind.

Jesus was a great teacher and man. His greatest battle was with Church Dogma.
He surrendered his life to prove his point. That the church will kill to shut up
those that don't agree with it. The church is trying to survive but not willing
to evolve with everything else. The spin the church put on the crucifixion of
Jesus is still yet another ploy to absolve them of responsibility and divert
attention from the real truth, that they killed him because he rocked the boat.

As far as evolution goes.. Everything Evolves. I mean EVERYTHING! Cars were the
product of intelligent design, but do today's cars look like the Model-T or Stanley
Steamer? Clock's, language, tools, Pc's, software..
YOU NAME IT !!!.... ALL HAVE EVOLVED!
And so does life! Even the Church has evolved (but not fast enough for some).

And for Tammy.. My checker demo simply shows several principle's of Natural Law.
How a logical mechanism, without real intelligence, can bring Order from Chaos.
How a complex system will balance itself and how grouping together improves survival.

Some one will say that God designed Natural Law. Sorry... God is a product of
Natural Law. God knows it, I know it, and someday.. you will also know it.

I not really as big a Butt as I may sometimes sound.. I'm sure that when Jesus
taught against Church Dogma, that he had opposition that had a low opinion of
his teachings and person. His rampage against money exchangers in the temple
lends proof that He could be a Butt too, as seen by some...lol.

Best wishes to all.. From Dave :^)

[Tammy]

Um...Dave? In your checkers program you imposed order (rules) on chaos. You acted like a god; if you had not imposed rules, the checkers would still be randomly distributed, not organized. But you seem to think that proves there is no God. Something is wrong with your reasoning, there. :)

[Edwina Higgins]

Dear Author, You should read the philosophy, aesthetics and poetry of Friedrich Hoelderlin, and also his novel, 'Hyperion'. You would see that his thoughts are really rather like yours, or vice versa. Perhaps the fact that you have both thought along the same lines also demonstrates something.

[Steven McDaniel]

Mark says:
[...Scientists and rationalists will require proof of creationism or evolution, but you don't require proof.

So stop asking for it.]

Hi, Mark. Take your pick which of my two following answers you want to argue against, or you can argue against both if you like:

1) So called 'rationalists' are unfortunately defined by the fact they would never accept any proof of 'creationism', as to them 'creationism' is a form of blasphemy against what they call the age of reason. They will not even accept the blindingly obvious fact that all this couldn't have gotten here by itself. Why should I wear myself out producing 'proof' that would satisfy them, if they can't even grasp that fact - it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out...

2) The fact that you describe yourselves as 'scientists and rationalists' means that it is perfectly in order for anyone, whether your fellow 'scientists', Christian believers like me, or even Melanese frog worshippers, for that matter, to require proof from you. That is simply the standard you yourselves have set for everyone to examine your assertions. Especially if you lot are always suing us through the Supreme Court (Insane Clown Posse) so that only evolution, not 'creationism' (anything that doubts evolution) is allowed to be promoted as reasonable propositions in the classrooms of our children's schools.

On the contrary, it is you who should not require proof of me for my faith. Anyway, if you would follow your conscience instead of just your intellect, you might see the whole world differently, Spock.

[Becky]

Several people have mentioned Einstein, here is a longer quote:

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man* can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there.

* or woman. This was before PC.

[LegioNofZioN]

you know what I don't get ... how is it people who don't believe in God talk about Him more than the people who do believe in God ... are some people trying to talk their way into disbelief ? whats wrong with having faith in something if its positive ? if it propels you personally through life in an upstanding position ? no one has to believe anything anyone else tells them. that is the world we live in. To what purpose do you attempt to debate the existance of God through abstract means ? Does anyone who participates actually learn something of which they were not previously aware, and now illuminated have changed their mind ? I thought not, no one will believe or disbelieve because of a few comments on a page .... believe what you will, do what you will, and when you are finally at your lowest point, near the brink, when nothing is worth living for, we will welcome you with open arms, in the brotherhood of those who follow and worship the lord I am that I am. None of us are ever so far gone that redemption is impossible. We count the days until more of you join us.

[Mark]

[Now, Soren, why should I be expected to prove creation? I was just disrespecting evolution, as it has no real proof, and unlike my faith, evolution purports to be science. Have a nice day!

Posted by: Steven McDaniel]

Why? Because you're asking for proof of evolution.

If proof of creation isn't required by you, why is there need of proof of evolution?

So please prove creationism or accept that evolotion can be true without proof (just as, for you, creationism can be true without proof).

Scientists and rationalists will require proof of creationism or evolution, but you don't require proof.

So stop asking for it.

[Dave Oblad]

Hi Scott. You mentioned evolution of Eyes and Wings and you got a few bites.

Bruce states:
****
You mention the eye and the bird's wing as proof of non-directed evolution. You state that as a fact, without support. Those who challenge random evolution point to the same two things as evidence that they couldn't have occurred randomly in any reasonable timeframe.

How, for example, did the eye evolve? It just seems to have appeared, without simpler eye-type organs preceding it. How did color perception come into being? How did organs develop that could differentiate between very very tiny variations in frequencies of light?
****

Well, Bruce.. You obviously haven't done your homework. Not only has the EYE
evolved but EVERY SINGLE STEP in the process exists in the animal kingdom today!

Furthermore, calculations of how long it would take for an eye to evolve from
simple light sensitive skin, is well under one million years. Many animals had
well developed eyes long before they left the ocean and moved to land. Eyes didn't
evolve by random mutation, but by very slow gradual deviations from a norm. Those
simple subtle changes that granted the species better survival abilities gave them
an edge, that is then passed on to children. If only a tiny percent of a species
had this edge, you would see it dominate eventually, after hundreds of generations.

My suggestion is to do your homework before blindly accepting something you
heard, that simply sounds good and helps support your (weak) position.

I'll make a statement for you! "Anytime one imposes a rule on chaos, order arises."
Natural law is full of rules. What makes natural laws what they are is the simple
distinction that they are NOT manifestations of intelligent design.

Here is an example of natural law at work: You will need some computer skills or
a friend that has such skills.

Write a program that creates a resizable grid, say 8 by 8, like a checker board.
Resizable up to.. let's say.. 500 by 500.

Now fill this board with checkers of 3 types, red, blue and green, no empty spaces.
Use any decent random number generator to get a nice random color mix on the board.
This is Chaos!

Note that every square has eight neighbors and is occupied by one of three colors.
Now apply a rule: A color, without moving, will infect it's neighbors and change
them to it's color, starting in the top left corner, across, down, across, to the
lower right hand corner. If you want, allow the edges to blend with opposite edges.
In other words, the right side connects to the left side and top to bottom, allowing
greater freedom of infection. (or ingestion, take your pick...lol)

Now the rule: Red can only infect Blue, Blue can only infect Green and Green can
only infect Red. Effectively, this is creating a world with three species on it.
Each species has a single specific food and is in turn, food to a specific species.
Finally, create a graph showing population percentages for each full cycle.
If done correctly, the graph will start with each species (color) at 33.3 percent.

Now let it run.

Notice that on small grids, one species will wipe out and dominate the board fairly
quickly. Now run it with larger grids. At some point a new phenomenon will emerge.
It's called critical mass. The chaos will settle into permanent balance and the
graph will show 3 perfect sine waves, each with a perfect phase relationship to the
other two. Chaos has changed to Order once a specific critical mass is achieved.

Also note, that survivability is enhanced when clustered with your own kind.
(I hope you don't think these squares are smart enough to be racist.)

Your seeing one of the many aspects of evolution manifest itself right in front
of you!!!! Without intelligent design, but with some properties that might be
interpreted as intelligent design, thus giving rise to the false belief that some
God must have had a hand in such perfection.

This is a perfect example of natural law.

Best wishes Scott from Dave :^)

[FreeWilliam]

Lyle says; "And the whole premise is that we evolve as necessity. Do we need colour eyesight to survive, or the appreciation of beauty or music? No, it's there that we may enjoy life to it's full. An intelligent God would gift us with those, it would not take place by accident."

Yep "colour eyesight" or colour vision helps us to discriminate about which things are safe to eat and which things are not. That is a direct survival mechanism particularly in a nomadic hunter gatherer. That we have advanced to the point where we no longer need it (although we do still use it to assess things like 'is this ripe or will it give me a gut ache') and are now able to use those abilities to appreciate art and beauty is proof of the effectiveness of colour vision (alongside our many other developed traits).

[FreeWilliam]

@Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

fossilise is in fact the English spelling and is used by english speakers world wide, only americans replace 'ise' with 'ize'

apart from that.. good points ;-)

[EDB]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

[Steven McDaniel]

Soren says:
"These aren't chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen Burners. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary - including, for example, the entire fossil record - is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like, "Our evidence didn't fossilise""(By the way that should be "Fossilize")
Please enlighten us of the proof of creation, Steven. Oh please let me. The earth, according to an early church pope is in fact, only 6000 years old and created on Oct. 14th at lunch time....."

Well Soren, and may I first of all offer an apology for not putting the slash through the 'o' in your name, as you seem to take issue with spelling mistakes. Being someone that doesn't agree with evolution, I of course am not conversant enough with these new fangled computers to slash my 'o's. Let me first enlighten you as to the existence of an island off of Europe called England, where 'fossilized' is spelled, 'fossilised'.
Now, Soren, why should I be expected to prove creation? I was just disrespecting evolution, as it has no real proof, and unlike my faith, evolution purports to be science. Have a nice day!

[Monica]

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
--Albert Einstein

It just felt relevant.

[Pandu]

Scott,

Do you know that the name "Krishna" primarily means "All-Attractive" in Sanskrit?

It also means "full of truth and bliss," and "blackish and very beautiful."

Krishna is God.

[Pandu]

Scott,

Do you know that the name "Krishna" primarily means "All-Attractive" in Sanskrit?

It also means "full of truth and bliss," and "blackish and very beautiful."

Krishna is God.