It is therefore supportive for the existence of God but this is not a necessary correlate. Plato believed in the existence of the immaterial, eternal Ideals but was agnostic concerning the existence of the gods. The argument for beauty in science really concerns the existence of some immaterial plane of existence where universals can reside. This seems quite disturbing to the modern mind, but there is intriguing evidence that this may in fact be the case. Orrell's book btw comes down as denying such an immaterial realm exists. I only cited it as proof that this is a substantive, current topic.
Statement and Argument - verbal reasoning - shortcut Tricks
Those that think more deeply about the question tend to be uncomfortable about the implications of such a perspective. They would argue that we conjecture tentative mental hypotheses that are then projected upon the material facts of the universe. As the many recent books on this topic show there is still no agreement which side is correct. Since this is a major component of the argument from beauty, i cannot understand why it was edited out. — preceding unsigned comment added by polambda ( talk contribs ) 04:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC) i agree with this sentiment (though as far as I can see the book in question doesn't come out until nov. But the whole existence of beauty suggests existence of God argument is so well established in the literature that it's really foolish to supress. Indeed my friend and opponent Colin Howson can write " almost all theists tell us write it is not possible to explain salient features of human existence such. A sensitivity to beauty" without "a suitably intentioned creator" (my italics) 1 nbeale ( talk ) 09:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I don't want to supress this argument, rather I'd like to see it presented as it is presented by its notable proponents. There are different ways of arguing from beauty, see this overview by Alexander Pruss, so we shouldn't assume they all share the same main premise and logical outline. As to the beauty in science section, do we have a reliable source for the claim that this is a major component of the argument from beauty to the existence of God? Vesal ( talk ) 15:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC) The original article made clear that the argument from beauty is at base an argument for immateriality.
This tie in, which I think is important from an epistomological perspective, was summarily deleted for no rational reason. Scientists appeal to beauty all the time and it is a very hot topic. A book on entry this subject was, for instance, just published by yale u press entitled "Truth or beauty: Science and the quest for Order" by david Orrell. He presents the pros and cons of a very contentious debate. This at base involves the question what exactly does science (and maths)do. Most scientists would instinctively say they are discovering truths 'out there'. This is somewhat akin to Plato's archetypes.
Actually, my impression is that nbeale is the only one who cares about this article. (i even made a query on the nor noticeboard to get input on whether my trimming was appropriate and nobody bothered to answer.) I have made it abundantly clear that I think nbeal's material violates a host of wikipedia policies, and my common sense understanding. Regards, vesal ( talk ) 10:38, (UTC) biography I don't care about this article (though I do think, as I said in the delete debate earlier this year, that it would be better subsumed within Teleological argument ) - but I do care about the wikipedia. Well done on cutting out the egregious essay-writing and WP:OR. Snalwibma ( talk - contribs ) 10:47, (UTC) In my opinion what was done to this article is intellectual vandalism. Where previously there was a detailed article with lengthy"s from reputable sources, the article has been so pruned as not to even explain the subject matter. There was, for instance, a link to another article on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
Neurochemistry is not that simple however, and while some drugs might increase the levels of some substance, others decrease them. And these changes can in turn create more or less activity in the brain, but this is not specifically related to the increase and/or decrease of neurotransmitters. An increase in gaba levels for example, generally decrease neuronal activity. ( talk ) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Rewrite is needed edit This article needs to be rewritten using the sources cited by many of the "keep" voters during the afd. The best way to do this would be to trim the irrelevant or and syn material. Then, maybe someone eventually will expand this article properly. That's my opinion, but I don't plan to do this rewriting myself, so i'm not going to revert again if people really think nbeale's material is better than a trimmed down version.
Statements and Arguments - splessons
( talk ) 18:58, (UTC) What of deadly beauty? Edit some things are perceived as beautiful which are deadly. Brightly colored frogs are poisonous. A walk in snowy woods can lead to hypothermia and death. Some murderers have murdered out of a distorted sense of aestheticism, seeing the torture and death of their victims as exquisite beauty.
Torquemama007 ( talk ) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Idealism edit keith Ward suggests that materialism is quite rare amongst contemporary uk philosophers "looking around my philosopher colleagues in Britain, virtually all of whom i know at least from their published work, i would say. Admittedly he doesn't essay refer to philosophers alone there, although to my understanding, what he says, remains quite the opposite of the statement given here; that is something like: '. Today, we idealists are really somewhat rare'. That way, it also seems a bit more convincing, doesn't it? I see, the" given here has been taken from his book "Is Religion Dangerous?" so i can only suspect that it's taken out of context, or maybe he just changed his mind? A podcast of the interview I'm relating to, you can get here: ml Zero Thrust ( talk ) 02:42, (UTC) to me raleigh the argument concerning drugs (in the criticisms section) seem like misleadig nonsense. You abviously add something (the drug) but of course the drug might change neurochemical processes in a way that could be seen as a "subtraction" of some kind.
Njyoder 09:28, (UTC) Congratulations on surviving the RfD :-) edit Or rather I mean, great work adding so much material since i last saw this one! merzul 18:18, (UTC) Carl Sagan - not philosophical criticisim edit i can't see how the" from Sagan is a philosophical argument, let alone one against the argument from beauty. Sagan is not a philosopher, "Religion" is not the same as "theism". As a separate issue, what Sagan says is certainly not true of all Christian scientists, and the Psalmist specifically celebrates the wonders of creation, but that's not really the point. Nbeale 08:24, (UTC) Changed to physicalism. Edit i was about to revert myself when I notices that now Physical had appeared in Swinburne's"tion, but then when I looked at the diff for my revert nothing had changed, Swinburne himself used the word physical.
So i say let's go with physicalism, so it won't be so serious of a straw man argument. It's now only question-begging :p respond at argument from love, so the discussion is focused. merzul 13:19, (UTC) Objection to the third premise edit simply being accepted by classical theology doesn't make a statement true. Classical theology also accepts the existence of God a priori. If statements as such are accepted for no other reason than they are made by classical theology, one might simply forgo the argument and simply conclude god exists. 1 Utterly misses the point, doesn't it? It's a statement about classical theology, just as premise 2 is a statement about materialism, and neither is particularly controversial.
And the whole thing goes back to Plato, with the Christian viewpoint going back at least to St Augustine. So i really hope people are satisfied, and that we build on this article and not delete the work. Nbeale 23:22, (UTC) i agree and this is largely copied from argument from love. It suffers from similar problems to the ones i outlined there and that includes not representing the form properly. They also both lack more obvious rebuttals. In fact, this is almost identical to the argument from love article, substituting 'beauty' for 'love.' someone needs to put in the correct form of both arguments. In this, it's mainly just premise 3 that differs, which not only makes the argument logically invalid, but is definitely controversial. I should note that Nbeale needs to stop writing up his personal ideas as if they were other people's and needs to stop declaring things "not philosophy" because the doesn't like it or "invalid philosophy" because it doesn't come from someone with a degree.
If I was. Hittite i'd probably question the handwriting logic that god loves me but then that depends on how you read deuteronomy:20:17, with the bit about utterly destroy them because the lord thy god hath commanded thee. I guess thats tough love in biblical times. Pity the bible is a primary source (note you have to read deuteronomy:20:16 and 18 for the full story of this non-love situation in certain translations). Ttiotsw 21:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry i didn't notice these comments before. Although I can understand why User:Snalwibma might have taken this view on 22 Dec when the article was (admittedly) a stub we now have something with lots of refs that two editors from opposing viewpoints have made substantial contributions. Richard Dawkins devotes as much space to "The Argument from beauty" ( his title for the section) as he does to the first 3 of Aquinas 's arguments put together.
of original analysis, then mentions a couple of people who may or may not (no evidence is produced) have used the phrase. It is not sufficient to show that others have used something which equates (in your estimation) to an argument from beauty; you must show that the phrase itself argument from beauty has some currency, if it is to merit an article of its own. Compare the discussion. Faith-sufferer, which has been nominated for deletion on similar grounds. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. This looks more like blog-material. Snalwibma 11:34, 22 December 2006 (utc see also, argument_from_love for a similar argument. It too smacks of or, though the Argument from love is a commonly used (if fallacious) argument.
If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on wikipedia. Start-Class on the project's quality scale? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Contents, original research edit, this page reeks of, wP:OR throughout. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from beauty" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical presentation musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. I will nominate for deletion as original research unless some evidence can be produced that the "Argument from beauty" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god.
Yahoo ceo not Alone
This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve paper the coverage. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Start, this article has been rated. Start-Class on the project's quality scale. Low, this article has been rated. Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikiproject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on wikipedia.