So it occurs to me recently that there is no aesthetic argument for the existence of God. Aside from the obvious question: does there need to be one, it poses an interesting topic for discussion.Currently there are four, out-dated and yet classic arguments for the existence of OOG God (an all-knowing, omnipotent, omni-good being -- not necessarily associated with any religion). The Teleological, Cosmological, Ontological and Moral arguments. My favorite is the Moral Argument -- best espoused by C.S. Lewis. Though I am an a priori guy so I do thoroughly enjoy Anselm and the Ontological Argument: "God is that which nothing greater can be conceived". Simply brilliant.
While the Teleological Argument comes the closest to what would be called an Aesthetic Argument, it's not quite the same thing. There is beauty to be found in complexity. The primary example of that is the human body taken as a whole.
My overall thoughts concerned the fact that there is lacking a formal apologia for God's existence in the face of a pretty woman (or man), in the warmth of a sunset, in the rhythm and lyricism of a song. Could one even begin to be proposed? I certainly lack the resources to formally present the argument for the argument.
But I am moved by beautiful things -- by the beauty of my wife, by songs and pictures. It leads me to OOG God. And certainly, isn't it implied that if there were an OOG God then beauty would be something he would be very much concerned with since beauty is most certainly a good and wonderful thing? I think so -- but it can be better stated.
Maybe the poet is the Aesthetic Argument, or it is the job of the poet to present the Aesthetic Argument for the existence of OOG God. Not the philosophers; not the theologians.
The thing of it is: which is more likely to make you believe there's an OOG God: Horton Hears A Who or The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock?
NOTE: A FRIEND, WHO DOESN'T BLOG ANYMORE FOR SOME REASON, IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO THIS IN HIS GRADUATE STUDIES IN TEXAS.
9 comments:
The first thing that popped into my head was our old discussion about what Eve must have looked like.
Beyond that, the difficulty with such an argument as I see it would be the inability to remove human influence over a fallen world when finding "beauty." Consider the fact that standards of attractiveness vary from culture to culture, or that the most "beautiful" sunsets are actually enhanced by air pollution. Certainly we can appreciate God's creation, and certainly we are that creation, but as with many other things, our perspective is limited and skewed.
Good old conversations over an old porch and some REM's "Nightswimming". And good points -- especially about air pollution. However, I still think the ancients marvelled at the setting sun.
There are also many other things that are beautiful and would be acknowledged as so across cultures -- so I think some common ground can be maintained for the sake of the argument for beauty. Therein lies the task -- to map such a ground out and then use it as a "proof".
Look at Plato and Aristotle and those guys, they all saw the inherent good in beauty and perhaps even in Symposium via the Forms, such an argument from beauty to OOG God could be explored. Of course at this point it starts getting philosophical and, I'd imagine, loses a little something in the pursuit via these means.
I still maintain two things: that if there is an OOG God, beauty would be something that he would create/be/reflect him in some way and so an argument for his existence can/should be explored via this route. Second, that it is the responsibility/task/glory of the poet to lay out the argument in all its imagination and wonder.
Of course, I am no poet -- nor do I have any idea what Eve looked like. Though I still maintain that whatever she would've looked like, she would very likely transform our/my current understanding/views on beauty in the female form simply because she was created as the first female (perhaps -- aside from Lilith :) ) to represent in all ways, the perfection of the female form. Hopefully, adam was a slightly out-of-shape athlete who drank too much soda and had glorious moments of sloth!
Interesting topic. When I try to think about someone who might give us inroads into such an endeaveor, the person that comes to my mind (perhaps suprisingly)is Friedrich Schleiermacher - the father of protestant liberalism. I had to read some of his stuff for a class I'm in, and I found myself liking it - to an extent.
Anyway, the reason I'm reminded of him is because he a romantic (in the technical sense of the term) and in his work, On Religion, he is writing to the cultured elite of his time (mostly artists and poets) saying that they have experienced God, and they are able to express God in ways that the average person (he calls them "the herd") does not know. He talks about religion as a "taste of the infinite" which for him is best expressed in the arts.
Just a thought.
Eric
Good insight. I'm probably of that same bent. Perhaps not so much that religion is BEST expressed in the arts, but finds its most UNIQUE expression in the arts. And I do like that "taste of the infinite" idea.
Just don't tell the ma-in-law about your fascination with Schleiermacher. She might organize an intervention at your behalf!!!
Of course, when I think of this topic -- and the more it gets into the idea of the poet and the arts -- three guess who I think of and the first two don't count.
It really does all come back to the Chipmunks porch, doesn't it?
ok, somebody has to explain the porch
It was just a place -- at the end of a long, long day of counseling young kids, a group of us friends would sit on the porch and wax about just about everything. From how the general of the salvation army is selected, to the Red Sox, to theology and philosophy to the age old question of how to lick down a tree. Yes. I said lick down a tree.
Anyway -- the whole thing about eve was a topic many a night on the porch. Though it actually originated between me and jdjones along the side of a street before camp even started one summer over a repititious playing of REM's Nightswimming. But still -- a conversation best suited for the porch (The chipmunks was the name of our cabin where we frequently met on such nights)
Is creation the only point at which we can see the OOG God at work (what about omni-potence, thus an OOOG God?) Assuming that all your bloggers have a basic understanding of the OOG God, perhaps a more adjectival word, ie, GOOD God (D=?).
Anyway, the discussion is interesting! Keep it goinig!
maybe you should rename the blog The Chipmunks Porch. It doesn't have quite the ring though.
Post a Comment