Thursday, September 8, 2011

beauty: fact, or opinion?

My responses are in bold type.

On UD vince torley has posted a long "essay" (LOL) in response to some things I said here recently. He originally said:

September 3, 2011 at 8:01 am


You make a valid point. I would argue, however, that the fact that the laws of Nature display a deep underlying beauty and “hang together” very well (as I explained in my post, Beauty and the Multiverse ), points to a single Intelligent Designer of the cosmos. I think that this would be a sensible default hypothesis for ID to adopt. Only philosophy can make this conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt, however.

To which I responded:

"Beauty is not a "fact". "hang together" is meaningless. The two put together don't point to squat. There's nothing sensible in ID and never will be. Philosophy cannot make such a stupid, baseless, so-called "hypothesis" and "conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt". It takes actual evidence to make something certain beyond reasonable doubt."

So, vince believes that beauty is an "objective fact" and that somehow the laws of nature and mathematics and hanging together and his opinion and the opinion of some other guys proves that, therefor god, oops, I mean therefor a "single Intelligent Designer", which of course we all know is not just another term for god (ROFLMAO!).

torley uses comments from several people to try to prove his claim about beauty but he's actually appealing to authority and opinion, and frankly, some of the stuff he says seems to contradict his 'beauty is an objective fact' claim.

Anyone with a clue knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's an opinion. It is not a fact and it is not objective. Do I really need to provide examples?

In torley's first statement (quoted above) about "the fact that the laws of Nature display a deep underlying beauty", he goes way beyond just saying that there is beauty in nature, or that the laws of nature display beauty, or that it's just his opinion, or that some other people may have the same opinion. He does the therefor god thing (his chosen god of course). He takes that ENORMOUS extra step, without any coherent or substantiated evidence (actually, no evidence at all). He even says that "Only philosophy can make this conclusion certain beyond reasonable doubt, however." Philosophy? Certain beyond a reasonable doubt? Surely you jest, vince?

Philosophy can't do anything of the sort, and especially what you think of as philosophy. People like you think that imagining is all anyone needs to do to figure out, well, just about everything. You obviously think that you, and maybe some others, have all the answers to every question in your head and that all you have to do is keep imagining and you'll find all of the answers, no matter how big the questions. The bigger the questions, the more likely that you think you can find the answer by imagining, and only by imagining.

I'm sure that you also think that your chosen god put all of the answers in your head, and maybe some other heads, and that your chosen god put them there for you or those others to find by imagining.

I've got some news for you vince. Brace yourself. The world does not revolve around your imaginings. The universe does not exist or function based on your imaginings. Facts are not determined or proven by your imaginings. Objectivity is not determined or proven by what you imagine. In fact, your imaginings and bald assertions are subjective, and your chosen god, or any other alleged god, is imagined.

Here is vince's "essay":