How does one explain beauty if one believes in a materialistic (purely physical) universe? There have been heroic attempts to explain away human physical beauty as nature’s means of selecting the most vigorous agents for replication, but how does one explain the pleasure one feels when looking at a great painting? What possible evolutionary value could that have?
It hasn’t escaped my notice that evolutionists vary rarely speak about aesthetics in terms other than human anatomy and sexuality. You won’t see much ink spilled (or pixels lit) about the evolution of music appreciation. When contemplating aesthetics, Darwin-worshippers tend to get very ponderous and ill-defined, because their theory fails to explain heaping swaths of the human experience.
I would be greatly impressed at anyone who has a plausible materialistic theory for how man came to appreciate non-anatomical beauty. When we look at the things that define man, abstract aesthetics, self-conciousness, forethought, magnanimous selflessness, it seems that something quite key is missing from evolutionary theory.
Perhaps that something is truth.
February 10, 2007 at 1:41 am
I addition to you excellent post: how is it that we not only appreciate and get moved by abstract aesthetics but we also have in ability to differentiate between what we consider as beauty. One person may like Bach another might like The Beatles. We have not only been given the ability to take pleasure in the arts but to seperate out likes from our dislikes. This is surely a product of designer from a Designer?
February 10, 2007 at 2:04 am
Very interesting point, and it hints at a question I’ve been pondering: is there an objective aesthetic rooted in the nature of God? I.e., do we find things beautiful to the degree they reflect God’s nature, or are our tastes formed solely by experience/exposure/influence, or some combination of the two?
April 20, 2007 at 7:59 am
If it’s a landscape painting, my own pet hypothesis is that the beauty is largely dictated by how livable the landscape is. Lush green valleys that hold potential food and water resources are a lott prettier than craggy desert badlands.
That’s a good point, but one thing you have to remember is the big influence that culture has on musical tastes. Most “primitive” tribal society’s music is basically rapid improvised drum beats appealing more to a physiological reaction in the listener than aesthetic tastes.
Also notice the vast difference in taste that emerges in different sub-cultural groups and regional groups within a society. Rednecks like country. Snobby rich people like classical. Black gangsta thugs like rap, etc.
I think that since there is a vague correlation between the complexity of one’s culture and the complexity of one’s favored music and that your family and social background’s large influence shows that musical taste is more cultural than biologically innate. Still, that there would be an apreciation for music at all regardless of its complexity is interesting and that may be problematical to atheistic evolutionists, it’s not something that I find particularly “threatening” to my beliefs regarding origins.
I would stick with this answer. Things are rarely cut and dry, especially when dealing the human mind.
April 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm
abyssalleviathin, I’m a college-trained musician, and I can tell you that most “tribal” music is incredibly aesthetically advanced, abstract, and intellectual. My mind was totally blown in an African drumming class, Westerners often can’t even begin to understand some African musical concepts. I would also note that the genre choices you speak of usually have more to do with social pressures than aesthetic tastes. To the degree that someone doesn’t follow the musical cliches of their peer group, you’ll often find a more senstive aesthetic sense.