Me: Because it’s true.

You: No matter if your charge is correct or not, it seem to me as just an ad hominem circumstantial attack, “you are wrong because it’s not the same argument”.

Me: No. I’m saying you’re wrong in refuting my argument because you’re not dealing with the argument from beauty as it is. The main post shows that.

You: Let us leave the references ten and look at the actual arguments we advance instead.

Me: Which is what I’ve been doing.

You: You’re apparently not one of them, but I’m fairly sure what what people mean by “it is beautiful” is more like “I think it is beautiful” rather than “It have a high quantity of beauty”.

Me: Then go ask most people and see what they say. Ask them if they think the object they speak of is beautiful or not.

You: I can make this clearer by pressing the question of the measurability of beauty (which I on second thought should have done already in my previous response). If we say that beauty is a property, then what physical mechanism do we refer to?

Me: Form, Clarity, and Proportion, which is what Aquinas spoke of. Does that have to be physical? No. You’re begging the question by assuming all such has to be physical. There is non-physical beauty.

You: How is it measured? We need to have objective means of doing this of course, and if there are no physical manifestation of beauty, then indeed there is no reason to thing that it actually exists.

Me: Tell me your physical means of measuring truth.

You: In this way beauty is identical to that of purpose.

Me: Let’s see if that’s accurate.

You: Purpose is an effect from our ability to plan ahead and set up goals, and it leads us to look for purpose in the world around us as well. However, if we look closely there is no purpose to identify in general in nature. Not that I by this want to diminish the gratitude we should harbor for the fact that we can find purpose for our actions.

Me: You are merely asserting that there is no purpose. I am curious if you think anything has objective purpose or not.

You: I asked what use a maximum beauty would have. My example of absolute temperature limits was intended to show one of the problem of putting a god there. Temperature is defined as the average velocity of the individual atoms in the given body. At the absolute zero temperature no movement happens at all (this is why it can not reach anything colder). If we allow for a god to have this property it can not be a theistic, or even deistic god. It could be a pantheistic god, but then we don’t really have any case left to advocate.

Me: Correct, because temperature is a necessarily physical quality and beauty is not. Beauty can express itself in the physical but it is not necessarily physical.

You: In the same way we have to ask what does a maximum beauty mean, and why is it important? It might exist, and I never proved it doesn’t, but I don’t have to do that. I can dismiss the claim since the burden of proof lie with you.

Me: Actually, no. If there is no objective beauty, then your whole post here is null and void and so is your argument. There has to be objective beauty for the post to make sense and your post assumed that there was. Why are you changing your position?

You: Regarding my own argument, we recognize that food, art and music critics differ in opinions, both by degree and in entirely. We accept this difference due to recognizing this as subjective evaluations. Thus, it is enough if just one person thinks the “secular” photos above are beautiful, because e can disagree with the majority and still be intellectually honest. This could not be the case if beauty were a physical property.

Me: We can be intellectually honest and still be wrong. When critics disagree, I take it to mean there is some truth that is worth disagreeing about. I would suggest you read Mortimer Adler on this topic in “Six Great Ideas.”

You’re apparently not one of them, but I’m fairly sure what what people mean by “it is beautiful” is more like “I think it is beautiful” rather than “It have a high quantity of beauty”. I can make this clearer by pressing the question of the measurability of beauty (which I on second thought should have done already in my previous response). If we say that beauty is a property, then what physical mechanism do we refer to? How is it measured? We need to have objective means of doing this of course, and if there are no physical manifestation of beauty, then indeed there is no reason to thing that it actually exists.

In this way beauty is identical to that of purpose. Purpose is an effect from our ability to plan ahead and set up goals, and it leads us to look for purpose in the world around us as well. However, if we look closely there is no purpose to identify in general in nature. Not that I by this want to diminish the gratitude we should harbor for the fact that we can find purpose for our actions.

I asked what use a maximum beauty would have. My example of absolute temperature limits was intended to show one of the problem of putting a god there. Temperature is defined as the average velocity of the individual atoms in the given body. At the absolute zero temperature no movement happens at all (this is why it can not reach anything colder). If we allow for a god to have this property it can not be a theistic, or even deistic god. It could be a pantheistic god, but then we don’t really have any case left to advocate.

In the same way we have to ask what does a maximum beauty mean, and why is it important? It might exist, and I never proved it doesn’t, but I don’t have to do that. I can dismiss the claim since the burden of proof lie with you.

Regarding my own argument, we recognize that food, art and music critics differ in opinions, both by degree and in entirely. We accept this difference due to recognizing this as subjective evaluations. Thus, it is enough if just one person thinks the “secular” photos above are beautiful, because e can disagree with the majority and still be intellectually honest. This could not be the case if beauty were a physical property.

Me: Which is not at all what I’m saying! I’m saying that we can perceive some things as beautiful of course, but that perception is either right or wrong. The beauty of the object is in the object and not the perception.

You: This is not particularly strange since this is how the expression is ordinarily understood.

Me: Nonsense. If I say “X is beautiful”, I believe I am speaking a truth about the thing itself and not just my perception of it.

You: But as I mentioned before, we can make assumptions of what is esthetical based on what people tend to agree on as beautiful.

Me: We can. That doesn’t show it’s true or false and so is irrelevant.

You: Your definition of the argument could, with some imagination, apply as a variation of the original formulation. However, it more closely resembles the argument from degree, although the original formulation by Thomas Aquinas discuss the degree of heat.

Me: My definition is the correct one. Yours is the false one. Aquinas did not say much about beauty as much as he did about truth and goodness. It might help to read Armand Maurer’s “About Beauty” or Umberto Eco’s “The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas” to understand what’s been gleaned from his writings on his thoughts on beauty.

You: But with your substitution of heat with beauty, what use would a maximum of beauty have?

Me: Note I didn’t substitute heat for beauty. You’re saying I did. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that I don’t know the use of maximum beauty. So what? That proves it doesn’t exist?

You: I am not saying that there are no absolutes. Take the absolute zero temperature for example. This limit is a logical conclusion from our knowledge of what constitute temperature, but our current understanding also tells us that it’s probable neither we, nor anything can actual reach it. It simply takes too much energy. Looking the other way, at the maximum temperature, and we only find infinity.

Me: Good that you agree there are absolutes.

You: Obviously one must ask how you measure beauty to begin with?

Me: Let’s suppose again that we don’t know. What does this prove? It proves we have a poor understanding of beauty. It doesn’t prove that there is no such thing. We do have standards of beauty. We do see some paintings don’t compare to those of Van Gogh for instance.

You: But even putting this aside, the idea that an extreme demands a figuration is not evident. Just because something can be thought of as a concept doesn’t mean it have to exist.

Me: Correct, but if that is the case, you live in a world where there truly is no beauty. You can say you perceive beauty, but that is a beauty that is not there. Now I ask you about all the photos you put at the top. Are they beautiful? If they are, then my case is shown. If they are not, then you don’t even have an argument as your argument was based on those being beautiful and yet not having religious significance, which is not the argument from beauty. Either way, your argument does not work.

Your definition of the argument could, with some imagination, apply as a variation of the original formulation. However, it more closely resembles the argument from degree, although the original formulation by Thomas Aquinas discuss the degree of heat.

But with your substitution of heat with beauty, what use would a maximum of beauty have?

I am not saying that there are no absolutes. Take the absolute zero temperature for example. This limit is a logical conclusion from our knowledge of what constitute temperature, but our current understanding also tells us that it’s probable neither we, nor anything can actual reach it. It simply takes too much energy. Looking the other way, at the maximum temperature, and we only find infinity.

Obviously one must ask how you measure beauty to begin with? But even putting this aside, the idea that an extreme demands a figuration is not evident. Just because something can be thought of as a concept doesn’t mean it have to exist.

Roger wrote: . What does religion have to do with moral and ethics? Is there some moral actions or statements that can’t be done without the presence of religion?

– As I said repeatedly above, I consider religion to be amoral, or morally neutral. It can be used to justify either moral or immoral acts. Religion is a tool. One can be moral without religion. People do not need religion to be moral. I am not sure why you keep bringing this up, as I feel I have already stated very clearly and repeatedly that I do not think religion has much to do with morality. I do not think we have a disagreement here, and I am not sure why you think we do.

Roger wrote: I recognize that not all grades of religion is fundamental, but all dogma have this in common: the acceptance of arguments from authority.

– Whose authority? Ultimately God’s, right? So how do we encounter God? Religions build conscience clauses into them, which allows for the rewriting or rejection of dogma, thus subverting human authority. This ‘conscience clause’ or ‘new revelation’ workaround is quite common. It is how new religions and denominations get their start, and how old ones update themselves.

Roger wrote: I am not saying that there will be no violence and irrationality if there is no dogma; I however think part of the longevity of dogma comes from ignorance. The more I listen to your arguments the more you appear as a religious apologist. It seems to me you have now reduced the role of religion to something people need; the junkie need religion for as mental support. This is just what I illustrate with my diamond example. It is not true just because it feels good, and given the negative baggage carried by religion we should rather look at other ways to enable people to improve. Maybe put more research in to cognitive treatment and medication?

– What about the positive baggage carried by religion, of which you make no mention? Cognitive treatment and medication are fine for mental illnesses, but religion deals with questions of ultimate value, as does some philosophy. This is out of the usual purview of mental health therapy.

Roger wrote: You say we can find value in scripture. Well sure, but since few today (I’d guess none) use Jefferson’s bible we must have some outside reference to pick out the good and sound moral, leaving the rest to the fundamentalists.

– And how or where would you fit in non-fundamentalist interpretations?

Roger wrote: This is still beside the point though, since it is yet another example of arguments from authority. Something isn’t true merely because it’s written down. Besides, I would really like to know how “religious understanding” have evolved? So called sophisticated theology might have more edges on their sword, but they haven’t become sharper.

– Quick example: The doctrine of the trinity did not appear until nearly four hundred years after the death of Jesus, and some Christians still reject it. The trinity isn’t in the Bible at all. A second quick example: Paul (who as a religious authority was well educated in traditional interpretations of Hebrew scripture) played very very fast and loose with conventional Jewish theology. He came up with bizarre interpretations of Hebrew scripture to defend the idea that Jesus was divine. He claimed that he could interpret the scripture differently because he was divinely guided to do so. Now, that’s a loophole you could drive a truck through. And it is not at all unusual. If you want much more detail on dramatic changes in religious understanding, read Karen Armstrong’s many books on the evolution of monotheistic ideas or Robert Wright’s “The Evolution of God.”

Roger wrote: Ok, I’ll tuck in the references here. One (of many) examples of a factual claim would be “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Genesis 1:1. In the event that you want to apply “interpretation” to this, then what would it mean? In my mind, any such attempt only serve to avoid the need to prove this statement. An example of an unfalsifiable theological proposition could be an argument from existence. Why do there exists anything at all in the first place? The next step is to postulate a creator outside the normal world, but such a claim is obviously unfalsifiable.

– All scripture is interpreted. All of it. There is no way around that. I and millions of other religious people see no conflict between the idea that God created all that exists, and that God ‘did it’ via natural laws and processes. What is the problem with Genesis 1:1? And why should it be falsifiable scientifically, when it is a religious statement? I also see no problem with religious statements being unfalsifiable. They are religious statements, not scientific ones. All values/judgment/standards statements — whether expressed as religious, political, epistemic, ethical, aesthetic or philosophical statements — are nonfalsifiable. So what?

Roger wrote: I’m not well versed in the philosophical terminology so I checked wikipedia and I’ve got news for you. If you say you’re an methodological naturalist you have to leave theology at the door.

– Roger, this is not news to me. I’m a retired scientist, and plenty of scientists are also religious. Methodological naturalism does not dismay me. It is the ONLY way to do science. I draw the line at metaphysical naturalism, which I consider a leap of faith. Science works wonderfully within its limited scope. But when people assume that the deliverances of science are the only road to all truths, well, in that case, they do make a metaphysical leap of faith.

Roger wrote: It say so right there, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_and_metaphysical_naturalism third paragraph. But leaving the technicalities aside, I think that the concept of miracles, the temporary suspension of normal physics, is a fallacy by definition.

– Are we very very sure that we comprehensively know all the laws of physics in all circumstances? Or can highly improbable things theoretically happen? (Remember that science doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in probabilities. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t rule out God entirely. He just says that God is highly improbable.) Also, I think miracles can be both explained scientifically and understood religiously, more about that below.

Roger wrote: When you give an event the description of a miracle, even though you say it doesn’t adhere to the normal physical laws, you describe some way in which this world works, since it is in this world it happened. If you do this, science can investigate the event in theory, although it could be very hard in practice. Saying that an event have supernatural causes only means to say that it can not be given any description of how it works in this world.

– Not at all. Take a ‘miraculous’/'anomalous’ healing. It can absolutely be described by science. We can look at medical charts before, and medical charts afterwards, and say, “My goodness! We can scientifically verify that the tumor is gone!” We can absolutely scientifically measure the presence and then the improbable absence of, say, a cancerous tumor. And still, a religious person could claim that it was a ‘miraculous’ healing.

Roger wrote: But this only means that you use a non-description as description to the event. In other words, either the event is natural, or it is non-existent.

– I think you pose a false dichotomy here; your metaphysical naturalism is showing.

A miracle could also be understood as an utterly natural event, completely describable by science. Take the story of the parting of the Red Sea: even if a ‘perfectly natural’ wind rose up and dried a path for the Exodus to occur, and then the wind died down and their pursuers drowned and perished, it’s the timing that makes it miraculous. What matters with miracles is the idea of intent and the idea that an event is supposed to open the mind of the witness to the possibility of God. It doesn’t have to be ‘unnatural’ at all.

Also, if you wish to debate these in a more in-depth style, I recommend coming to TheologyWeb.com. I’m ApologiaPhoenix there.