Feedback archiveFeedback 2018

Can there be beauty apart from God?

Published: 15 September 2018 (GMT+10)

D.G. from Canada writes in (comments in red), saying that unguided evolution produces real beauty, no God needed. Responses from CMI’s Shaun Doyle are interspersed:

Your posting on stumping the scientist shows the typical logic of a religious person.

What specifically are you referring to? We can’t review what we’ve said if you don’t point us to the specific instance you’ve taken offense at.

The comment that if we are created by a god then our thoughts are beautiful.

We don’t say that. We might say that the existence of objective beauty, and our ability to recognize beauty, doesn’t make sense apart from the objective standard of beauty and value that God is. But Christianity doesn’t say that human thought is always beautiful. Quite the opposite, in fact (e.g. Genesis 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, John 2:24, and Ephesians 2:1–3). We’re sinners in thought, word, and deed in need of rescue from our sorry selves.

But if we are created by evolution the [sic] are just random and unimportant sums up your thought processes.

Well, what objective value do we have, if we’re the product of naturalistic evolution? None. Any ‘value’ we assign to ourselves or anything else is just that; assigned by us, nothing more. Without objective value, things are only important if they’re important to us. But that doesn’t make them objectively valuable or important. So, yes, if we arose through naturalistic evolution, we’re just a pointless historical accident (When atheism seems easy).

Something that just happens can be the most beautiful thing it does not need a god.

That assumes that there are things that ‘just happen’. On biblical theism, nothing ‘just happens’. Anything truly beautiful (and not merely beautiful to the beholder) that seemingly ‘just happens’ would thus be an instance of God’s grace. God doesn’t have to give us beautiful moments unexpectedly; but He does to remind us of His goodness.

At any rate, apart from God, can anything be truly beautiful? Sure, many things might be beautiful to us, but apart from the transcendent standard of value—not just moral, but also aesthetic—that God is, isn’t beauty merely in the eye of the beholder? If so, then when you say ‘that’s beautiful!’ and I disagree, neither of us is objectively right or wrong; it’s just a matter of personal taste. But that also means that nothing can be objectively beautiful apart from God.

And you alway point to we must be created because we are too complex. But god who was always here just popped into existence it’s ludicrous childs way of thinking.

The problem for evolution isn’t simply that the cell is ridiculously complex. Rather, it’s that its ridiculous complexity has very specific ends: sustaining, maintaining, and reproducing itself. But how can the cell do that by itself as successfully as it does every day? The logistical problems that need to be solved to produce such a system are light years beyond our technical ability to solve at present. If a system like the cell is too sophisticated for us to design, why think the cell arose naturally? Spontaneous physics can’t create aeroplanes from tornadoes in junkyards, so a fortiori it would never produce cells from some pre-biotic ‘soup’. See Basics of biblical biology, Reading ‘origin of life’ research, Origin of life, and Life’s irreducible structure—Part 1: autopoiesis.

Your second sentence mocking the conclusion to divine design seems muddled. At best, I think you mean something like: ‘Invoking a god who was always there who just popped life into existence is a ludicrous child’s way of thinking.’ If so, that’s not an argument; it’s a baseless (insulting) assertion. After all, do you have anything close to an account for how life first arose? Do you even have plausible hints at how all the logistical challenges could be solved by abiotic processes? No. If you think God is a ludicrous explanation, it must be for a reason other than biology and the origin of life. The presumed truth of universal common ancestry can neither help you explain the origin of life nor save you from the need to explain it. It’s the same with the presumed sufficiency of undirected biological processes to explain all life’s diversity; it can’t explain the origin of life from abiotic materials. Therefore, considering just the origin of life, God is a perfectly fitting explanation, given what the cell is, and what it does, and what He is like. So then, why is invoking God as the designer of life such a ‘ludicrous child’s way of thinking’?

Perhaps you mean that the idea of an eternal God popping into being is ludicrous. We would agree, since such a notion is self-contradictory—it’s saying that God is a being without beginning that began to exist. So, I suspect you might be arguing against God as an eternal uncaused being, to which my response would be: where’s the problem with the idea? If everything that began to exist had a cause, then uncaused beings are eternal (Could God cause the beginning of the universe?). But, if your meaning is different from that, I’m sorry, but I couldn’t understand it.

The beauty of evolution is that it was to explain the mechanism that God used to create us …. I personally know you will discount or twist my comments because that’s the child’s game of gotcha you never explain yourself you just pick out faults in others or try to trip people with difficult questions.

I’m confused. Before, it sounded like you thought evolution replaced God as the explanation for how we came to be. But in this section, it sounds like you’re saying God used evolution to create. They can’t both be right. Which is it? I don’t ask this as a ‘gotcha’ question, but because genuinely I find your words confusing.

Hopefully, in allowing you the place to clarify yourself if I have misunderstood you, you can see that I’ve tried to interact with your comments to the best of my understanding (and I have admitted where I found you hard to understand). But, let me suggest this to you: if you’re constantly on the guard against ‘gotcha questions’, you’ll never be open to examining your own views critically.

Every worldview faces difficult questions, ours included. Indeed, there are many questions we don’t have the answers to. But when facing such questions, how we respond is largely determined by what we’re predisposed to put our confidence in. For us, we trust God for the things we don’t know, since we’re convinced of His sovereign goodness through the things we do know (Why did God allow sin at all?). I imagine that for you, you rest your confidence in science to answer questions as yet unanswered.

However, can science answer all the questions? No. For instance, it can’t tell us whether beauty is real, whether morality is real, or even whether God is real. Science is very good at what it does: investigating how nature works. But that doesn’t mean science can answer all the questions. Indeed, the statement ‘we should only believe what is scientifically proven’ itself can’t be proven scientifically. So, science is limited. There is more to this world than science can explain.

And science is a method of inquiry; it’s not something to trust. Science is only as good as the people wielding it. Are all the people who use science trustworthy? To an extent, sure, but like us, they’re human, and thus fallible. And science can’t obligate people to tell the truth about their findings. For that, you need a moral standard. Indeed, it’s biblical doctrines like the fallenness of man that allowed science to blossom (The Fall and the inspiration for science, see also Why does science work at all? and The biblical roots of modern science). Science at its basis and its best thinks God’s thoughts after Him. Therefore, even those who trust in science should trust in the God who makes it possible.

Helpful Resources

Christianity for Skeptics
by Drs Steve Kumar, Jonathan D Sarfati
US $17.00
The Creation Answers Book
by Various
US $15.00
The God Reality
by Rob Slane
US $8.00

Readers’ comments

Philippus S.
Reason is the reason evolution cannot evolve something to be beautiful, as evolution does not know what beauty is only intelligence does and we know evolution does not have that.
Dale S.
Christian greetings!
It is by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that we can see beauty in His Creation. Evolutionists do not believe that God exists let alone that He created. The beauty of creation is that everything God created was fully formed. Evolutionists cannot make this claim because they believe everything evolved from something else. Evolutionists cannot explain the beauty of the human eye. Charles Darwin could not explain the human eye and how it was able to develop through evolution.
Sincerely in Christ,
Dale S.
Dean R.
The “childish” charge is such an immature and not so bright response to faith in God (meanwhile atheists are apriori super mature, intelligent & bright for trusting in something they cannot explain-except when they are not).

There is a certain beauty in child- like trust and there is a definite ugliness in a defiant child that thinks they know it all. Beauty is not just something to behold with our eyes or observe through a microscope it is much deeper than that.

As much as I appreciate some accidental art (which has been observed and is usually associated with patterns and bursts of colour in a sink or on paper and all the creative processes of intelligent mankind as well as the physics that come along with it) No unguided process will even come near to such a wonderful thing as the creation of the world with all its divine mystery, power and wisdom. And just as beautiful is God’s redemption and love filled with purpose and delight for young and old alike.
Vicki M.
Well done CMI for a very clear and reasoned response to D.G.'s statements, which can only be described as confused and confusing. (The poor grammar etc creates difficulty teasing out what the writer is trying to say.)
Robert M.
This 'critic' hardly deserves an answer. However, when discussing 'beauty' we need to consider the miracle of being able to (i) observe anything through the senses, and (ii) have the capacity to recognise and emotionally respond to things we observe as 'beautiful' and others as 'ugly'. Do any animals have this capacity? And even if they do, doesn't this make human appreciation of beauty in colour, sound, shape, etc., all the more admirable?
Jordan C.
Thanks Shaun for being very gentle in your responses to D.G. considering how his/her comments lacked cogency and common respect throughout. I couldn't help but feel embarrassed for him after reading this. His rant seemed to be more of an attempt to vent disagreement by the use of insult rather than reason. Perhaps the barrier for his disbelief is emotional, for it is certainly not logically merited by his comments. He has accused we creationists of "being childish" however it is actually his misconstrued view of Creationism that seem "childish" and elementary. I would encourage D.G. to first grasp a basic, yet accurate understanding of Christian theology before going out on a limb by accusing others of employing a ludicrous childs' ways of thinking.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.