Talk:Argument from beauty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Logic Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Original research 2 Congratulations on surviving the RfD :-) 3 Carl Sagan - not philosophical criticisim 4 Changed to physicalism... 5 Objection to the third premise

[edit] Original research

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 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. If the article started with (e.g.) "the Argument from Beauty is a concept that has been widely used in discussions on XXX by several philosophers, including YYY and ZZZ...", I could be convinced. But it jumps straight into a heap 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 on 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 I was a Hittite I'd probably question the 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 to. 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. 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, 5 January 2007 (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 in philosophy.

-Njyoder 72.75.49.245 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on surviving the RfD :-)

Or rather I mean, great work adding so much material since I last saw this one! --Merzul 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan - not philosophical criticisim

I can't see how the quote 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, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed to physicalism...

I was about to revert myself when I notices that now Physical had appeared in Swinburne's quotation, 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, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to the third premise

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. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)