Beauty

[Nick_A]

What is beauty and how does it relate to "awe" It is useful for appreciating this deep question by comaring the observations of an atheistic and a Christian mystic. First contemplate and excerpt from Richard Feynman with atheistic leanings.

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? ~ Richard P. Feynman

Notice how the perception of beauty stops at the stars and meaning begins by scientifically examining the nature of the stars. Compare this with Simone Weil's appreciation of what beauty is an indication of. It doesn't deny the physical makeup of the stars but rather the feeling of beauty includes the indication of a higher reality beyond our conceptioon of the stars that Man is drawn towards.

"Beauty is the only finality here below. As Kant said very aptly, it is a finality which involves no objective. A beautiful thing involves no good except itself, in its totality, as it appears to us. We are drawn toward it without knowing what to ask of it. It offers its own existence. We do not desire something else, we possess it, and yet we still desire something. We do not know in the least what it is. We want to get behind beauty, but it is only a surface. It is like a mirror that sends us back our own desire for goodness. It is a sphinx, an enigma, a mystery which is painfully tantalizing. We should like to feed upon it, but it is only something to look at; it appears only from a certain distance. The great trouble in human life is that looking and eating are two different operations. Only beyond the sky, in the country inhabited by God, are they one and the same operation. ... It may be that vice, depravity and crime are nearly always ... in their essence, attempts to eat beauty, to eat what we should only look at." Simone Weil

What is beauty? Does it exist as an objective reality or even indicate the existance of objective reality? Is it an emotion that serves no purpose or does it serve a purpose we find hard to comprehend? I side with Simone and believe human experience of beauty indicates an inner recognition of a facet of intelligent design that indicates the source of this design.. How as either atheist or believer would you define and explain beauty?

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi Nick,

Our discussions are becoming more interesting. You must be aware that I “have traveled this road many times” and that the ideas here are NOT new to me. I discuss them repeatedly for the benefit of readers who are sincerely looking for answers to their personal questions about spirituality – and who can benefit from alternative views to the religious propaganda that permeates our society.

Those who promote supernaturalism take on a burden of convincing others that they speak truth. Without evidence to verify their claims, they must rely on emotion and supposition. Arguments devoid of reason and evidence do not prosper in a debate environment except against weak opponents. Personal beliefs and opinions have no validity beyond the individual.

Relating the above to the OP, I see no reason to attribute “beauty” to a “higher reality” or “intelligent design” – but regard attempts to do so as efforts to bolster the imaginary by attaching desirable characteristics that cannot be shown to be related.

You may not see any reason but have you ever tried to experience the question?

Experience the question?????

Go out on a clear night and look up at the vastness of the heavens.

I do that regularly and because I live in rural places I often have views that are unencumbered by surface lights. I appreciate the beauty.

Is this just an accident?

I have no idea – and neither does anyone else. Many have theories to “explain” the existence of the universe but they have NO proof of “origin” or “cause”. There is no evidence of a “creator” though many like to believe there is such a thing.

You may not see the reason for it but do you allow yourself to feel if there is something greater than yourself behind it all responsible for the laws of its motion by becoming open to the question?

I am open to consider that there is something larger than mere humans – based on evidence NOT conjecture.

I know you are turned off to idolatry and cults. I agree. Why allow your disgust to deny you becoming open to feel the question of your being.

“Feel the question of your being”??????

When people turn this into beliefs is when the trouble starts. keeping an open question is beneficial. Simone explained it in relation to Christianity degenerating into secular Christendom:

I am not bound by Christianity or any other religion. If there is evidence from any source I am willing to consider it sincerely and openly. If you have evidence, kindly bring it forward.

"In the Church, considered as a social organism, the mysteries inevitably degenerate into beliefs." Simone Weil

Seeing a reason for something is one thing but feeling a need for something is another.

“Feel a need”????? I feel no need for supernaturalism or for magical “explanations” of nature. I have studied nature in great detail and have deep appreciation for the real world as it exists without fanciful “explanations”.

Once we degenerate contemplation into beliefs we lose the benefit of a teaching for our being.

I agree that beliefs often represent degeneration of contemplation.

Even though you don't see a reason, must it deprive you of feeling the question by keeping the question open and just ponder it without concern for beliefs?

I am open to consider evidence. I am not open to hearsay, conjecture, ancient “truths” that cannot be verified, personal opinions, dogma, etc. I am not impressed by claims that “goddidit” regardless of which gods are being promoted or by whom.

[Nick_A]

Hi Z

Our discussions are becoming more interesting. You must be aware that I “have traveled this road many times” and that the ideas here are NOT new to me. I discuss them repeatedly for the benefit of readers who are sincerely looking for answers to their personal questions about spirituality – and who can benefit from alternative views to the religious propaganda that permeates our society.

I assume then that you can approach these questions with impartiality rather than the emotional denial natural for skepticism.

Those who promote supernaturalism take on a burden of convincing others that they speak truth. Without evidence to verify their claims, they must rely on emotion and supposition. Arguments devoid of reason and evidence do not prosper in a debate environment except against weak opponents. Personal beliefs and opinions have no validity beyond the individual.

What I am doing is raising questions natural for discussion which is not the same as trying to convince anyone of anything. "What is beauty" is not an argument but rather a shared question.

You are referring to Charlatans. Those that have experienced greater reality if they are legit don't tell others what to believe but show how another can experientially verify it for themselves. A personal belief may be true or false but only considered by another.

Experience the question?????

“Feel the question of your being”??????

“Feel a need”?????

Some people are not satisfied with regular secular life. They feel as though there is something more that is lost through our attachments to our daily activities. A person can be very successful in daily life but come to wonder what they actually are living for. These people have questions and feel a need for the experience of meaning and purpose not supplied through societal life. Questions like "who am I" "How can I experience "meaning?" are typical questions. They can be asked superficially or become the motivating force for their life. To feel the depth of a question is to search for a deep response beyond the superficial. Such responses require more than the usual use of our mind. I invite you to read the following transcript of an interview between two well respected men that throws light on this idea of feeling the question. Here is an excerpt:

http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/needle.htm

NEEDLEMAN: Absolutely. It was never separate. Philosophy and psychology were always together, and it's only a modern thing in our culture that there has been a separation between the search for wisdom and transcendence, and the study of the mind, one's own mind and all its possibilities, not just the pathology. So it's true; the twentieth century is the time when philosophy and psychology got separated off, but it never was that in the past. So yes, I would like to think of myself as trying to be a psychologist, in the ancient sense, as well as a philosopher.

MISHLOVE: When we deal with the realm of the intellect, with the realm of concepts, you've introduced a very interesting distinction I'd like to bring up, and that is the difference between a concept and an idea.

NEEDLEMAN: That's a tough one. It took me a lot in my book to explain it.

MISHLOVE: It meant a lot to me when I read it.

NEEDLEMAN: It's hard to put it in a quick description. A concept is a kind of mental tool for organizing data and facts. It's like an aspect of a computer, or a filing system, and very useful. But it's part of a rather automatic part of the mind which the human being has, which is very useful. An idea is like an expression of a fundamental reality -- a force, in a way. Sometimes it takes its expression in words, an abstract formula; sometimes it's in images; sometimes it's in geometric forms, in art forms. So the verbal expression of ideas is only one way of communicating, of speaking about something that goes beyond just the isolated intellect to understand. It's very hard to put this quickly in any other way. But ideas come from a deeper level of the human mind. Concepts are the ordinary mind functioning as it should to organize, cut, dry, put in file cabinets, and do all that.

MISHLOVE: In other words, normally when we think of the work of the intellect we're thinking about concepts that it deals with. Ideas are something that the intellect is also engaged in, but ideas penetrate deeper; they have a greater transformative power.

NEEDLEMAN: Absolutely. They're meant to be accepted by the intellect, but they need to penetrate down into the heart and the guts, and that's what concepts don't do particularly.

MISHLOVE: And ideas, I suppose, are not measurable in the way that concepts are. They can't be manipulated the way that concepts are manipulated.

NEEDLEMAN: No. If they are, they get twisted.

Notice how ideas must bypass our usual acquired concepts (rationalizing) and perceptions of right and wrong in order to be experienced by the heart which is what needs the spiritual truths. You seek through debate to classify by your established concepts which do not allow you to feel an idea. Before feeling it, you've already prejudged it. It is like this with this question on beauty. To begin to feel what Simone means, you would have to become open to experience the question in a new way and not confined to your normal conceptions.

Read this interview. If deep thinkers like this imply some value to it, perhaps it is so.

I am open to consider evidence. I am not open to hearsay, conjecture, ancient “truths” that cannot be verified, personal opinions, dogma, etc. I am not impressed by claims that “goddidit” regardless of which gods are being promoted or by whom.

But are you open to the evidence that comes from your own efforts towards inner empiricism? Nothing is being said here about a personal God telling you what to do. All that is being suggested is there is a higher quality of "being" man can evolve towards, a greater good we are drawn to in which Man experiences meaning and purpose not supplied by external society. Beauty promotes this attraction. If we feel the validity of this question the next question is how to ponder, contemplate, so as to deepen the question and allow for guidance unrelated to our egotism and its concepts to come from within since it cannot be provided by external life.

[Zzyzx]

.
Nick,

Some people are not satisfied with regular secular life.

I sympathize with people who have not constructed a satisfying and fulfilling life for themselves and who feel a need to search outside themselves for meaning.

They feel as though there is something more that is lost through our attachments to our daily activities.

Others consider daily activities as LIFE itself and find fulfillment in the activities they choose.

A person can be very successful in daily life but come to wonder what they actually are living for.

By WHAT definition of “success in daily life” can one achieve success without having an understanding of what “they actually are living for”? Are you referring to material definitions of success?

What IS a definition of “success in daily life”?

These people have questions and feel a need for the experience of meaning and purpose not supplied through societal life.

Again, I sympathize with such people but do not identify with, or feel responsible for their problem.

Questions like "who am I"

I cannot relate to a person not knowing who they are – though I realize that it is a common expression.

"How can I experience "meaning?" are typical questions.

If one has not “experienced meaning” in life they perhaps need external guidance.

They can be asked superficially or become the motivating force for their life. To feel the depth of a question is to search for a deep response beyond the superficial.

Perhaps those who have answered the questions for themselves feel no need to pursue “meaning” because it already exists in their life. It would be very difficult (and very presumptuous) to attempt to convince me that my understanding of “meaning” or “life” is superficial.

Notice how ideas must bypass our usual acquired concepts (rationalizing) and perceptions of right and wrong in order to be experienced by the heart which is what needs the spiritual truths.

Perhaps others are interested in “experienced by the heart” and bypassing experience and knowledge. I prefer to use my mind. I am not inclined to set aside the real world in order to seek supernatural experiences that some claim exist – nor am I willing to use mind-altering substances to achieve “greater understanding”.

You seek through debate to classify by your established concepts which do not allow you to feel an idea. Before feeling it, you've already prejudged it.

Correction: I seek through debate to illustrate that arguments based upon supernaturalism cannot be supported with reason, intelligence, experience and evidence.

“Feel an idea” is not rational in my world. “Think an idea” is rational. I do not seek the irrational.

Read this interview. If deep thinkers like this imply some value to it, perhaps it is so

I have read the interview. Academic philosophy is not a major interest of mine. I prefer “deep thinking” on matters related to the real world I inhabit.

I am open to consider evidence. I am not open to hearsay, conjecture, ancient “truths” that cannot be verified, personal opinions, dogma, etc. I am not impressed by claims that “goddidit” regardless of which gods are being promoted or by whom.

But are you open to the evidence that comes from your own efforts towards inner empiricism? Nothing is being said here about a personal God telling you what to do. All that is being suggested is there is a higher quality of "being" man can evolve towards,

I prefer to focus attention on what IS rather than what “might be”. Anyone can imagine “a higher quality toward which man can evolve”. I leave that to others while I live a very satisfying and fulfilling life without such “lofty” pursuits.

Again, “I am not open to hearsay, conjecture, ancient “truths” that cannot be verified, personal opinions, dogma, etc”

“Inner empiricism” is NOT my term or my concept. To me it translates as emotion. How is it different from emotion?

a greater good we are drawn to in which Man experiences meaning and purpose not supplied by external society.

Can the “greater good” be shown to exist? Is it provided by an outside force?

Beauty promotes this attraction.

Perhaps for some.

If we feel the validity of this question the next question is how to ponder, contemplate, so as to deepen the question and allow for guidance unrelated to our egotism and its concepts to come from within since it cannot be provided by external life.

I have encountered many would-be “advisors” in life who attempted to show me that they knew how I should learn to “live a better life”. Some I got to know beyond the superficial. Their life did not seem superior in any way to my own (and perhaps not nearly as satisfying). How were they qualified to advise me how I should live?

How is anyone qualified to tell others how they should live?

[Furrowed Brow]

This raises the question if the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.

I don’t think Feyman is suggesting he understands the beauty of a flower because he can reduce the flower to all its working parts. Rather his enjoyment is more total. His experience more layered. Maybe even deeper.

For example, you and I can hire a beautiful young model to examine her well proportioned naked body and determine exactly what about it makes us feel that she is beautiful. We bring our magnifying glasses up close to her skin and start examining all these minute details of her skin up and down her body such as small pimples and hairs etc. making notes on them all under the assumption that this will allow us to better understand her beauty. We cannot seem to find the connection. Of course she will look at us as though we are both nuts.

Did you know Feyman took to painting in later life. He had a penchant for drawing nudes. And was often found frequenting strip clubs. When engaging with “beauty” he did not refer to his notes. (I cannot help but like Feyman).

However it was a neighbour who taught Feyman to paint. They had deal. He would teach Feyman to paint. Feyman would teach him quantum physics. The neighbour admitted that Feyman became a competent artist, but he never got anywhere near a competent understanding of quantum physics.

I think the point here is that there seems to be a culture anti-scientific zeitgeist that sees scientific reductionism and pure abstraction as a dead end that misses the aesthetic picture; and by so doing science is not a fully rounded human activity. I think this is just wrong. Science is more than reductionism.

But what is a thing in itself. This was Kant's question. Simone's appreciation of beauty stimulates her to recognize the world and the heavens as an extension of what is behind them:" Plato's world of forms. A thing in itself cannot be defined without consideration of it as an extension of a greater whole and beauty invites us to become open to it.

Well don’t get me on Plato. I think the world of forms is a rubbish idea. Complete philosophical misdirection. All philosophy is a critique of language (Wittgenstein). The Platonic invocation of ontological realms formed from misunderstanding the limits and form of language. However, where language reaches its limits, and where scientific questions end, then you reach an aesthetic that cannot be put into words. The affect upon the observer is an orientation, the nature of which cannot be defined. Which is exactly what Plato tries to do.

Go out on a clear night and look up at the vastness of the heavens. Is this just an accident?

As an atheist I answer that question with the answer : the vastness of the heavens is what it is. I do not invoke a guiding hand. I would like to know more, what came before what, the hows and whys? So I would like to deepen my knowledge, but again there is no need for or pull towards invoking any god. Yet the experience of standing under a clear night sky can still send a tingle down my spine.

You may not see the reason for it but do you allow yourself to feel if there is something greater than yourself behind it all responsible for the laws of its motion by becoming open to the question?

I can ask the question, but the answer is always the same. The universe is awesome without a god. Invoking one just don’t feel right. In fact it feels completely wrong. Of this I’m certain.

[Nick_A]

Z

I sympathize with people who have not constructed a satisfying and fulfilling life for themselves and who feel a need to search outside themselves for meaning.

By WHAT definition of “success in daily life” can one achieve success without having an understanding of what “they actually are living for”? Are you referring to material definitions of success?

What IS a definition of “success in daily life”?

A person can have a fulfilling life in society and yet feel empty on the inside. Success is defined by our prestige. It is given to us by family, friends, and society. A successful life is defined in relation to the dictates of societal goals.

But some people come to ask who they are and what purpose they are serving that is unrelated to society and the external world. Society says you are a success because you are a respected lawyer with a nice family and lots of money. You have the prestige of a successful lawyer. Yet a lawyer can come to ask who they are and their purpose is regardless of how they are defined by society.

I cannot relate to a person not knowing who they are – though I realize that it is a common expression.

OK, so you don't understand these questions. Fair enough but "who are you?".

If one has not “experienced meaning” in life they perhaps need external guidance.

It can be a great help but where does one find these rare people that understand anything? They are not proponents of fundamentalism and secularism which are the dominant motivating forces in society and the odds are way to heavy that a person seeking help in dealing with "meaning" will run into soul killers in one form or another whether intentional charlatans or misguided proponents of some form of charlatanism, politics, New age fantasy, secular religion, or humanism.

Perhaps others are interested in “experienced by the heart” and bypassing experience and knowledge. I prefer to use my mind. I am not inclined to set aside the real world in order to seek supernatural experiences that some claim exist – nor am I willing to use mind-altering substances to achieve “greater understanding”.

But how do you define the real world? Do you really believe it is revealed to you through your intellect alone?

“Feel an idea” is not rational in my world. “Think an idea” is rational. I do not seek the irrational.

Next time your wife says "I love you," ask her if it is her intellect or heart she is referring to. If she says it is her heart, tell her that since it is irrational you don't want it and see how far honesty gets you.

I have read the interview. Academic philosophy is not a major interest of mine. I prefer “deep thinking” on matters related to the real world I inhabit.

Prof. Needleman was not referring to Academic philosophy but philosophy as the love of wisdom which must include the necessary psychology..

Simone felt the real world and was drawn to it at fourteen yet many never feel it. What is the real world?

Excerpts from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

She is willing to die for the real world where truth abides and you prefer to ignore it to preserve your subjective conception of reality.

I am not open to hearsay, conjecture, ancient “truths” that cannot be verified, personal opinions, dogma, etc. I am not impressed by claims that “goddidit” regardless of which gods are being promoted or by whom.

The bottom line is that you are not open to that which your preconceptions do not think it worth being open to. I suggest this closed minded mindset leads to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

“Inner empiricism” is NOT my term or my concept. To me it translates as emotion. How is it different from emotion?

True inner empiricism are the results of efforts of conscious attention used to look within beginning with bodily sensations and mechanical habitual movements in response to external stimuli so as to consciously experience the self. Conscious attention strives for emotional impartiality.

Can the “greater good” be shown to exist? Is it provided by an outside force?

It can be revealed theoretically. Having access to it requires an inner change. Most don't think it important other than lip service about world peace and the like.

Suppose you live in a town and know about twenty friends that play chess. These friends if they belonged to USCF would be related at about 1200 in playing strength. You would be rated around 1600. You would be considered the one who really understands chess since you beat them over the board. You have no reason to think of bettering your game since you are already top dog.

Now a visiting grandmaster rated 2600 visits the town. Someone tells him that you are a marvelous player. The two of you meet and he blows you away ten straight games and you are clearly no competition. Now you see that you never really understood the game but the illusion of understanding was as a result of the collective low level of playing strength. Now it is your choice to continue feeling self important by beating those less than you or trying to understand the game by willing to accept your lack of understanding. Understanding the real world is just like this. Beauty is an indicator that there is a greater quality of meaning behind what our senses experience . A person begins by admitting as Socrates did that "I Know nothing." in relation to what exists behind but inspires the experience of beauty.

If we feel the validity of this question the next question is how to ponder, contemplate, so as to deepen the question and allow for guidance unrelated to our egotism and its concepts to come from within since it cannot be provided by external life.

I have encountered many would-be “advisors” in life who attempted to show me that they knew how I should learn to “live a better life”. Some I got to know beyond the superficial. Their life did not seem superior in any way to my own (and perhaps not nearly as satisfying). How were they qualified to advise me how I should live?

Notice how I referred to guidance coming from within and you changed it to external guides. The question is how to develop inner discrimination.

How is anyone qualified to tell others how they should live?

The only ones universally tolerated as qualified to tell others how they should live are collectively called mother-in laws. If you don't believe it you may suffer not so divine retribution

[Nick_A]

F B

I don’t think Feyman is suggesting he understands the beauty of a flower because he can reduce the flower to all its working parts. Rather his enjoyment is more total. His experience more layered. Maybe even deeper.

Maybe so but the point is that beauty still stands as a doorway that invites some to open it. Most are infatuated with the doorway and others like Feyman like to learn about what creates the visible path leading to the door. The spiritual person seeks to experience what calls from behind the door.

I think the point here is that there seems to be a culture anti-scientific zeitgeist that sees scientific reductionism and pure abstraction as a dead end that misses the aesthetic picture; and by so doing science is not a fully rounded human activity. I think this is just wrong. Science is more than reductionism.

World history has shown that the value of science is related to the quality of being of the people making use of it. It is capable of being both a boon for humanity and of becoming the means for its destruction. Science by itself doesn't care what happens as long as its curiosity is served. There are some scientists capable of inner morality and others like those in Germany experimenting on the Jews that lack any sense inner morality. It is only through adding the spiritual dimension that opens man to the experience of inner morality that science IMO can be more capable of serving man rather than asking man to serve its curiosity.

Well don’t get me on Plato. I think the world of forms is a rubbish idea. Complete philosophical misdirection. All philosophy is a critique of language (Wittgenstein). The Platonic invocation of ontological realms formed from misunderstanding the limits and form of language. However, where language reaches its limits, and where scientific questions end, then you reach an aesthetic that cannot be put into words. The affect upon the observer is an orientation, the nature of which cannot be defined. Which is exactly what Plato tries to do.

This is a whole other thread. Of course as a believer in involution and cosmology as well as psychological experiences related to efforts towards self knowledge, Plato's world of forms make perfect sense to me. I've come to believe that where the atheist goes wrong is in their insistence upon using inductive reason because of not being open to deductive reason in contemplating the universe. Here is a comparison of the two:

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

Socrates was one who had access to this second function. Anyone who understands those like Plato, Simone, Prof Needleman, etc., are drawn to this top down approach in comprehending levels of reality and their qualities of consciousness.

Is intelligent design the same as a guiding hand? Are the universal laws that mechanically sustain creation as we know it the working of a guiding hand or just the natural results of interacting universal laws? Is the churning sea the work of a guiding hand or the lawful results of these laws that science can come to know more about?

I see it as laws. Geometry is intelligent design we experience as order and consequently beauty. Simone describes this beautifully:

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

[acamp1]

"Beauty" depends upon our limited earthbound perspectives. The light bounces off the subject and hits our eyes just so... We're on the ground to experience that gorgeous sunset... We're on top of the mountain looking down on a sprawling pastoral scene.

Is your hypothetical hired model still beautiful with the lights out?

If we could be omniscient - if our perceptions were not limited by geography - how would we perceive beauty? Would we?

[edit: Visual beauty is just an example here. Of course, other senses would apply as well. Tactile, for example: I mean, sure, the model is still beautiful with the lights out... ]

[acamp1]

The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions..

I do not believe this is a fair representation of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is classic "Sherlock Holmes"-style logic. Superstitious as Conan Doyle actually was, I doubt Sherlock would agree his was the same manner of thinking used by religion.

From the venerable wikipedia:

Both types of reasoning are routinely employed. One difference between them is that in deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world.

I guess my problem with the summary you've provided is this: "having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles..."

Had "revealed"? Who invited revelation? Who's to say what's a valid revelation and what's not?

False premises yield false conclusions. That's deductive reasoning.

[McCulloch]

I do not believe this is a fair representation of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is classic "Sherlock Holmes"-style logic. Superstitious as Conan Doyle actually was, I doubt Sherlock would agree his was the same manner of thinking used by religion.

That reminds me:
Holmes: Watson, look up at the stars and tell me what they mean.
Watson: I think it's such a humbling experience to look up into the night sky and see millions of twinkly stars looking over us. It's quite amazing how we can see stars when they are so far away in the universe.
Holmes: No, Watson, it means that someone has stolen our tent!

[acamp1]

Holmes: No, Watson, it means that someone has stolen our tent!

That is great. Perfect segue.