Friday, May 02, 2008

Is beauty in nature evidence of God?

Have you ever been in absolute awe at the apparent beauty of the universe? I remember, in my last year of high school, being part of a mission trip to Swaziland. On one of the evenings we ran a service at a rural mission station; we conducted short plays, a sermon, worship and an alter call. The little chapel which we used was overflowing with people from surrounding villages, and many in the audience committed their lives to the Lord that night.

As a young Christian, this was incredible. For the first time I had been directly involved in 'leading people to the Lord'. That night, after the service, the mission team lay outside on the grass, looking up into the clear African sky and talking excitedly about the evening. I suddenly realised how beautiful the night sky was, and how clear and colourful the stars were. Together with the spiritually charged events of that evening, I was convinced, then and there, that there was a God, and that all the surrounding beauty was the result of his handiwork.

So I can relate wholeheartedly to the following comment, left by Trevor on an earlier blog post of mine:

Then one day I looked outside from the classroom and saw Table Mountain in its splendour with a white cloud over it and I was very moved. I somehow got convinced that God existed.

As a Christian, this is exactly how I felt. But since my de-conversion, I've been bothered by the following question: is beauty something that humans discover in nature, or is it something that we impose upon nature?

Focussing on art, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, has suggested the latter: the emotional response to beauty is purely neurological. He proposes ten neurological principles of beauty that explain why we gain aesthetic appeal from certain images. Here is a fascinating summary of his work.

Basically, the argument proposes that the human brain is wired, through evolutionary and cultural forces, in such a way so as to be stimulated by specific visual patterns. For example, the brain is especially stimulated by images that are exaggerated from the norm (i.e, the 'peak shift effect'), as well as by patterns that are symmetrical. The brain also experiences a pleasing experience when it discovers patterns in noise (i.e, the 'grouping effect').

This kind of work lends weight to the argument that humans impose their idea of beauty on the universe, rather than the universe inherently possessing some sort of overarching beauty waiting to be discovered. A sunset is not inherently beautiful, our brains simply perceive it as being so.

Does this make the significance of the night sky less inspiring or awesome? No it does not. I look into the sky on some evenings and still feel a sense of awe and wonder. It makes no difference to me knowing that the beauty I perceive more likely comes from within, rather than from without.

26 comments:

CyberKitten said...

KP asks: Is beauty in nature evidence of God?

No. We can appreciate beauty but beauty is not inherent in nature (or anywhere else). Beauty exists in our minds - not in the outside world.

Why exactly we appreciate beautiful things....? Now that's a good question.

Anonymous said...

People often mistake nature-based beauty for proof of god, and that is because religious folk tend to believe that the earth centers around them - they tend to believe that humanity's existence is the reason for the world's existence, and so they believe that if something is beautiful, god must have made it for them to make them happy.

Of course, this kind of thinking isn't very logical - we adapted to the world, not the other way around. The world just IS, and as you said, it is we humans who impose the notions of beauty and wonder.

In some ways, this is an argument for why humanity is important. With no gods or concrete reason why things exist, those reasons and those values must be generated by sentient beings like humans. Thus, without humans, the world ceases to have real meaning because no other animal imposes such values on the world. What do you think?

I'm not saying that Humanity is the reason why the world exists (the world exists for reasons we don't really know), but I am saying that Humanity has worth because we are the only species on earth that has the capacity to comprehend science and create values. And if humanity didn't exist, such values would disappear forever. So there you have it - a reason why an atheist like myself cares about the survival of the human species.

CyberKitten said...

Korolev said: Thus, without humans, the world ceases to have real meaning because no other animal imposes such values on the world. What do you think?

Why does the world *need* to have meaning? If we did not exist then the universe would go on its way very well without us. Just because we give our own meaning to things doesn't mean that we are in someway important because of that.

Korolev said: the world exists for reasons we don't really know

You seem to be assuming that the worls exists for some 'reason'. Why do you think that? Can't the world exist without any reason to do so?

Anonymous said...

I was standing in front of a beautiful lighthouse in Oregon, USA, when I remembered a past-favourite Bible verse, "The heavens tell of the glory of God, and the firmament..."

Now as an ex-Christian, standing there among a number of magnificent rock formations overlooking the beach, I realized that the rocks didn't tell me anything about a god.

The rocks told me about evolution. They told me that water had spanked the mount for millions of years, carving the beauty I was watching.

But I still liked it. The sky was clear blue, the day was sunny, the waves were large, and the combination of it all gave me goose bumps.

No gods needed to feel the force of nature.

Anonymous said...

I keep coming back and reading more and more of your blog...I resonate with SO MUCH of what you are saying here....I cried out to God for years as a Christian begging himself to let me know he was real...nothing.

Yet people around me had wonderful, intimate relationships with him.

I appreciate your blog.

Laughing Boy said...

cyberkitten said...

"Why exactly we appreciate beautiful things....? Now that's a good question."

Yes, that's a good question! At least it's a more fundamental one. What is the basis of this distinctly human quality? Why is it, as far as we know, distinctly human?

Laughing Boy said...

korolev said...

"Humanity has worth because we are the only species on earth that has the capacity to comprehend science and create values. And if humanity didn't exist, such values would disappear forever."

What difference does it make if they disappear forever? What good has our capacity to comprehend science and "create" values done for any other species or any other physical object in the universe? How would it's disappearance negatively impact those remaining objects? Those very capacities have been at least as detrimental as beneficial (or so goes the common wisdom). Maybe they'd be better off without us? In fact, that's the idea behind a National Geographic TV special that aired recently (I can't remember the name) the "moral" of which was that, once we're gone, all these man-made environmental travesties will be eroded away and the earth will return to a pristine and perfect wilderness, free from our meddling capacities.

CyberKitten said...

LB said: Yes, that's a good question! At least it's a more fundamental one. What is the basis of this distinctly human quality?

Welcome back to the Blogosphere. Are you back or just passing through?

I think that the human appreciation of beauty probably has a lot to do with the srtuture of our brains somehow & is probably either of evolutionary advantage or as a by-product of something that is. I have a sneaking suspicion that it has something to do with mathematics but I haven't read up much on the subject so don't really know.

LB asked: Why is it, as far as we know, distinctly human?

Its entirely possible that other animals appeciate beauty too - we'd never know as we really can't communicate with them.

Laughing Boy said...

Given that I don’t post much anymore I’ll take the liberty of making a somewhat lengthy one now which is taken from a book I’m reading. This passage speaks directly to mathematics but is highly relevant to your discussion of beauty:

---

Some distinguished mathematicians have been self-confessed Platonists. One of these was Kurt Godel…Godel based his philosophy of mathematics on his work on undecidability. He reasoned that there will always be mathematical statements that are true but can never be proved to be true from existing axioms. He envisaged these true statements as therefore already existing "out there" in a Platonic domain, beyond our ken.

Another Platonist is the Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose. "Mathematical truth is something that goes beyond mere formalism," he writes. "There often does appear to be some profound reality about these mathematical concepts, going quite beyond the deliberations of any particular mathematician. It is as though human thought is, instead, being guided towards some eternal external truth—a truth which has a reality of its own, and which is revealed only partially to any one of us."

Another example that has inspired Penrose to adopt Platonism is something called "the Mandelbrot set"….This set has such an extraordinarily complicated structure that it is impossible to convey in words its awesome beauty. Many examples of portions of the set have been used for artistic displays. A distinctive feature of the Mandelbrot set is that any portion of it may be magnified again and again without limit, and each new layer of resolution brings forth new riches and delights.

Penrose remarks that: “The complete details of the complication of the structure of Mandelbrot's set cannot really be fully comprehended by any one of us, nor can it be fully revealed by any computer. It would seem that this structure is not just part of our minds, but it has a reality of its own….The Mandelbrot set is not an invention of the human mind: it was a discovery. Like Mount Everest, the Mandelbrot set is just there!”

"Is mathematics invention or discovery?" asks Penrose. Do mathematicians get so carried away with their inventions that they imbue them with a spurious reality? "Or are mathematicians really uncovering truths which are, in fact, already ‘there’—truths whose existence is quite independent of the mathematicians' activities?" In proclaiming his adherence to the latter point of view, Penrose points out that in cases such as the Mandelbrot set "much more comes out of the structure than is put in in the first place. One may take the view that in such cases the mathematicians have stumbled upon 'works of God.' " Indeed, he sees an analogy in this respect between mathematics and inspired works of art: “It is a feeling not uncommon amongst artists, that in their greatest works they are revealing eternal truths which have some kind of prior etherial existence….I cannot help feeling that, with mathematics, the case for believing in some kind of etherial, eternal existence…is a good deal stronger.”

Paul Davies, “The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”, pp 142-144.

*****

If mathematics is a discovery not an invention, then who’s invention is it? We can ask the same question regarding beauty. We can also, I believe, ask the same question about ethics.

*****

ck...I suppose it could be that we just don't know whether or not animals appreciate beauty, but we know a great deal about animals and, as far as I know, we haven't found any evidence that they do. For instance, do animals create art? Do they exhibit any tendencies toward aesthetics? Certainly there is beauty in some of the things they do, but it is not purposeful, done for the sake of beauty. Humans do and always have purposefully exhibited purely aesthetic tendencies. This much is obvious.

yingerman said...

The expression goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Most likely its beautiful if you want it to be.

CyberKitten said...

LB said: If mathematics is a discovery not an invention, then who’s invention is it?

Maths is neither discovered (its not already 'out there') nor can it really be said to be invented - but it *is* developed as we understand more about the universe.

LB said: We can ask the same question regarding beauty.

You *could* but it would be meaningless. Humans find things beautiful. If there were no humans around to appreciate things they probably would still exist but there would be no one around to *define* them as beautiful. I don't think that beauty is independent of beings that can appreciate it.

LB said: We can also, I believe, ask the same question about ethics.

Absolutely not. Ethics are human constructions - but we've had this debate many times (or at least it seems that way - laughs)

LB said: For instance, do animals create art? Do they exhibit any tendencies toward aesthetics?

Apparently yes. Even putting aside apes, elephants & cats that paint (and have been critically aclaimed for their art works) I have read about several species of birds that spend a great deal of time & effort decorating the areas around their nests with what can be viewed as 'art-work'. But I guess that's pretty much in the eye of the beholder bird.

LB said: Certainly there is beauty in some of the things they do, but it is not purposeful, done for the sake of beauty.

That's difficult to say. They *may* be creating works of beauty just for that reason. How would we know either way?

LB said: Humans do and always have purposefully exhibited purely aesthetic tendencies. This much is obvious.

Apparently so. Interesting isn't it. Though I remember hearing that recognisable art is a fairly 'new' development in the scheme of things - somewhere in the region of 100K years I think - maybe when our brains evolved enough complexity maybe?

Anonymous said...

My question ... "Who wired the human brain?"

CyberKitten said...

anon said: "Who wired the human brain?"

No 'one'.

The human brain *evolved* to cope with survival pressures. It was working fairly well until we invented WMD [laughs].

Anonymous said...

Very interesting thoughts on this post; you all definitely have my brain working. It would indeed be difficult to claim that "beauty" in nature is evidence of God since we may have differing ideas of what constitutes beauty, but I would argue that complexity in nature provides very strong evidence of God. There has been much discussion on this post concerning mathematics, and in that regard, the odds of the universe having been spontaneously created and held together the way it has (let alone the development of life forms) has never been adequately explained apart from the notion of a sovereign creator and sustainer. I suppose one could assert that such unlikely complexity and adaptability of the universe and mankind is, in a sense, beautiful. In that case, beauty in nature would then be evidence of God.

phil

CyberKitten said...

Phil said: I would argue that complexity in nature provides very strong evidence of God.

No, it doesn't. There is actual evidence that complexity in nature is a result of evolution. There is, at least as far as I am aware, no evidence for the Hand of God in the process of increasing complexity.

Phil said: the odds of the universe having been spontaneously created and held together the way it has (let alone the development of life forms) has never been adequately explained apart from the notion of a sovereign creator and sustainer.

I agree that the origin of the universe has yet to be adequately explained - though this does not mean that "God did it" is an adequate explanation (for anything actually).

Anonymous said...

Cyberkitten,

Thanks for your response. It has been my understanding that much of what has led to and sustained the development of evolutionist theory is strikingly unscientific (meaning that it does not follow the standards normally applied to scientific analysis), and it in some cases opposes what has been much more conclusively confirmed and recognized as scientific fact. To place one's faith in evolution, one would have to trust in a number of untested and unproven assumptions, and trust in statistically impossible random-chance odds. This is not necessarily an argument for God's existence, but it demonstrates that it takes much greater faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator. For more on this, I suggest checking out the book "Dismantling Evolution" by Ralph Muncaster... definitely worth a read, even if you're a skeptic.

phil

Anonymous said...

Lui,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments; however, I believe your description of natural selection as a "cumulative, non-random process" is false. Evolution of life forms, at the cellular and micro-cellular level, is entirely contingent upon random chance mutation, which is completely contrary to what is normally observed in cell life. I am familiar with "The Blind Watchmaker," but I will look into your suggestion regarding "Climbing Mount Improbable." Thanks for the recommendation.

phil

Anonymous said...

Lui,

I disagree with your assertion that "It matters not one bit that the mutation was random." The random nature makes all the difference as to whether or not one can reasonably believe that such mutations took place (evolution of cellular life as proposed would require an endless number of incredible naturally-occuring "coincidences" that no statistician would accept based on analysis of numbers alone). The degree to which such mutations occur naturally, in a manner that adds complexity to cellular structure to promote evolved lifeforms, more than meets the standards for statistical impossibility. Beyond that, it does not explain how "life" itself was ever infused into lifeless matter (the greater secular scientific community has arrived at no sufficient definition for "life" in the first place... most proposed definitions I've seen merely provide agreed-upon characteristics of life, with no indication of its scientific origin or causation).

What you mentioned about breaking down lactose is interesting-- I hadn't heard that before. Thanks for sharing.

phil

CyberKitten said...

Excellent posts Lui [looks impressed].

Anonymous said...

Lui,

Thank you for your well-researched answers and examples. I understand your description of natural selection as a "sifting process." However, the types of mutations you describe as having been observable and beneficial do not add complexity in the manner posited by natural selection theory. Your explantion is that "Adding complexity is a slow process, and you wouldn't necessarily be able to even see it happening in the very limited amount of time we have for observing evolutionary events." This is what has been suggested by evolutionist theorists all along, and is one of the factors that leads many to suggest that the earth is several billion years old. Still, even the most liberal estimates regarding the earth's age do not provide adequate time for such theorized mutations to occur in a manner that provides evolutionary complexity to cellular life. It seems the more unlikely that people realize evolution is, the older they declare the earth to be. This is a highly subjective practice that is aggressively debated even among scientists of the non-faith community. The failure to arrive at even a general consensus demonstrates the enormously dubious nature of such man-made assertions.

You asked my thoughts about the nature of life. I have a feeling, however, that you would reject my sentiments as unscientific. Indeed, my beliefs are a matter of faith, and can not be proven because they are not demonstrable or repeatable. However, I believe this does not discredit them. The biblical creation account has withstood the highest degree of scientific scrutiny, and has been around much longer and is far more trustworthy than the ever-modified man-made suppositions of evolutionary theory.

phil

Anonymous said...

Lui,

Thanks again for the responses. I appreciate your insight regarding Hox gene families, though I believe your usage of this phenomenon as evidence of evolutionary complexity of life is highly assumptive and by no means univerally accepted in the scientific community. Even you assert that they only "likely" have ramifications for celluar complexity. Far too often, what has been deemed "likely" or even "certain" by humankind has later been proven untrue. Examples such as this do not yield conclusive ramifications for the development of life forms, and they also necessitate a number of unproven assumptions and a large imagination. According to the scientific method, they have not passed the "hypothesis" stage.

You seem to discredit my assertion that Old Earth theory has been furthered by evolutionists. I absolutely stand by that statement because it is true, though, as I said, it is only "one of the factors" that have led to Old Earth theories. You are right in stating that physics and geology have played a part in this process as well, but these phenomenon are better explained by the biblical accounts of creation and the flood than by billions of years of supposed cosmological events. Furthermore, I don't follow your argument about how a young earth in any way suggests that God is limited or less than eternal. Earth and lifeforms are simply a creation of God, and God is infinitely greater than his creation, no matter how old creation is. Sure, an older universe might make us more "impressed," but I am personally plenty impressed by what I see. I believe in a young earth because it is taught by the biblical record, and supported by observable phenomenon in the world around us (a fact I am sure you will disagree with, but we could address that as well if you wish).

Regarding your question about viruses, I believe God would create such "terrifying things like Ebola and HIV" because His primary concern is His glory, not our comfort. While He is a loving God, he is also a God of justice, and He uses means that are sometimes not pleasing to mankind to further His purposes.

You assert that I have been brainwashed by "propagandists with no interest in critical thought." This is another assumption. The most compelling evidence I've encountered in this field actually comes from former athiest scientists who had determined, through critical, scientific means to disprove the teachings of the Bible. It was only through intellectual examination of scientific evidence (and, I would argue, the work of the Holy Spirit), that they saw the highly subjective, assumptive, and unstable foundation upon which much of evolutionist theory is based. Like you and I, they were seeking truth, not an agenda.

phil

Anonymous said...

Lui,

I have rather enjoyed us sharing our contrasting viewpoints, but unless I misinterpreted, there was quite a bit of hostility in your latest remarks. It is not my desire to bring out unkindness in anyone through debate such as this. I appreciate our freedom to disagree, as long as we can do so in a mature manner. Referring to my viewpoints as "stupid," "vile," and "ignorant" may in fact be your true feelings, but such terminology is unbecoming of intellectual debate. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your sentiments.

Regarding your assertion that there is not "one shred of evidence" of the creation/flood accounts in physics and geology, I believe that is untrue. The formation of earth's sedimentary layers is incredibly consistent with what one would observe from a single, worldwide event such as the flood described in Genesis. Fossil types of long-extinct animal species have been discovered at surface levels in several parts of the globe which would have been impossible if geological layering had occurred over purported billions of years. There are many phenomena such as this that have never been sufficiently explained by any theory other than what is indicated in the Bible. Creationists are often accused of believing in God to "explain away the unknown," but I believe that what God has revealed in the Bible does an excellent job of explaining what we observe today.

Your thoughts about the injustice that occurs in places like the Congo Republic are well noted, and I don't mean to suggest that the immoral actions of mankind pleases God. The Bible teaches that our world is currently under the "curse" of sin (brought into the world by Satan and man--not by God), and that God is temporarily allowing sin to exist, but He will ultimately punish those who reject Him and commit acts such as you described. But yes, I believe that God is right now allowing and using tragic circumstances to accomplish His sovereign purposes in our world, which are far beyond simply always making people happy. I can see the beauty, goodness, and love of God in certain aspects of the world, while at the same time seeing very unpleasant events as evidence of God as well. His love and His justice/wrath are both characteristics of His eternal nature.

phil

CyberKitten said...

I struggle with any kind of reasonable response in the face of such outlandish beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Lui,

I thank you for the time invested in your last response, and unfortunately, time does not currently permit me to respond at length to all of your points. I would, however, like to respond to the following statement you made: "Perhaps when these viruses get around to severely impacting your life, however, you'll have a more appropriate appreciation for what science can do and feel less compelled to turn to God for all your answers."

Here you have jumped to the faulty and presumptive conclusion that I and my family have not been seriously affected by viruses and other such medical tragedy. Clearly, you make this assertion based on what you feel you have perceived in my previous comments, and this is a typical (albeit much more personal) example of the many groundless assumptions you have posited over the last several posts. In this case, you couldn't be further from the truth, and I likewise believe that is indicative of many other statements you have made. Your suggested links between helpful medical/biological research and natural selection theory are by no means conclusive; one does not necessarily have to do with the other. I believe in God, yet I find value in scientific development as a God-given tool, so long as it is accurate. Regarding your multiple (and very good) questions about the account of Noah and the flood, much of what you have asked has been very intelligently addressed by Mike Snavely's "Mission: Imperative" research, and I would refer you to that source for more on that subject. Just because you don't have the answer to a question doesn't mean there isn't an answer. You have needlessly segregated faith issues from those of so-called "intellect" and "rationality," (man-made terms that have no objective substance apart from a universally sovereign being) but biblical faith has been upheld by both human intellect and reason for millenia. Do not be deceived into thinking that worldwide "enlightenment" has occurred only in our modern era; there have been thoughtful challenges to the teachings of the Bible throughout history, and there is a reason that the faith has survived such scrutiny: it is objective truth, and it is rationally defendable.

phil

Gabriel Florit said...

hi kevin,

thanks for your insightful posts. i'm a christian dating a jewist atheist - so far we've had a great relationship, but of course the idea of marriage and how to raise children will required thoughtful conversations. it's interesting to see you guys share a life and not share worldviews. thanks for all the time you guys take to write all this down.

love from alaska,

gabriel

Anonymous said...

I am certainly not going to say that it is absurd to believe that nature's beauty is subjective, a product of some sort of apprehension in the mind.

I am to old and too unsure of my own prejudices to play God myself. However, as a friend, let me ask you to open your mind to at least one possibility. There is a very real conundrum that scientists are aware of and discuss privately but will not discuss publicly. That is the current problem of the necessity of true tychism in the macroscopic world to explain its apparent inconsistency with classical physics. There is, in a sense too much beauty in nature (and other "macroscopic" phenomenon - in the sense of above the quantum realm) This current. This is real. Have an open mind, research it thoroughly FOR YOURSELF and I think you might surprised.

Also, in my opinion, there is no dichotomy between you and nature. You are part of nature, your perceptions are a real part of nature. There is a purpose to your perception.

Also, in my opinion, it's not all relative. Certain aspects of modern art being reactionary and therefore largely discountable, we can honestly say that beauty has certain characteristics, the most obvious of which is an aspect of order tempered with a creative element that has some aspect of chance or novelty. This is not unlike nature itself. That is perhaps part of the reason why art stirs the emotions the way it does.