If someone asked me what the evidence was for the universe expanding, I could just say “red shift”. I might even give some slight explanation of red shift. In the same way, if someone asks me for evidence that God exists, I can say “motion” or “goodness”. The difference is that in the second case, people actually kid themselves into thinking that they could understand a whole science in a single argument. They want more than evidence, they want the whole science by which their mind could be moved by the evidence.
The Five Ways sight motion, causality, contingency, degrees of perfection, and the direction of motions as evidence for God’s existence. What is usually meant by evidence, however, is “evidence that can be persuasive to a hostile opponent when given within the confines of a combox or short debate” or “evidence that I can just look at and immediately understand the whole scientific structure in which it reveals itself as evidence”. Under this restriction, there is no “evidence” for God’s existence, or for any other scientific, mathematical, logical, or academic truth.
Just Thomism 
Peter said,
July 15, 2008 at 11:07 am
How do you think beauty might fit in with proofs for God’s existence, or perhaps for accepting revelation?
Ever since reading Brideshead Revisited years ago I have been intrigued by this. You must know the part from that book; Charles questions Sebastian about “believing in all that nonsense”, and Sebastian replies, “of course I do, it’s beautiful.”
a thomist said,
July 15, 2008 at 11:35 am
St. Thomas never regarded the beautiful as a transcendental or an unlimited perfection, and I think he did so with good reason. “Beauty” is too limited to the proportional and finite.
Now that I’ve horrified myself by saying that, let me explain. Beauty seems to become something else when it is pushed to an infinite limit. What people frequently mean by “the beautiful” or even what they mean first by the beautiful is “the sublime” which is in one sense a part of beauty, and in another sense opposed to it. It is tricky to articulate the relationship between these two. Is beauty a “pointing” towards the sublime? Is beauty the intelligible aspect of the sublime- since the sublime is known essentially in its superabundance and disproportion to reason? I haven’t thought all this out yet, and St. Thomas left it to others to hash out.
Beauty, in other words, seems to have an essential finitude that catapults us beyond itself, as opposed to the good or the true. In one sense, this is why beauty is better for thrusting us toward God, and in another sense this is why beauty is not as apt to be said of God as the good or the true.
Dale said,
July 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Interesting.
I often think of the ‘beauty’ of music along these lines.
I’ve heard of an experiment where they play both ‘in tune’ and ‘out of tune’ music to young babies – with the speaker behind the same ‘attention-getting’ pattern. Apparently, the babies sustained their attention significantly longer when the ‘in tune’ music was playing…
And, as a musician myself (amateur!), I am struck by the ‘laws’ of it. Not only in terms of ‘in/out’ of tune, but also the ‘in/out’ of rhythym. Fascinating…
a thomist said,
July 16, 2008 at 6:56 am
What do you see in the experience of awe?
It is clear that this is of decisive importance in explaining the sort of question that Peter is asking about the role of the beautiful, for chances are that the experience of the divine beauty is most of all correlated to this object of awe. The essential element seems to be a disproportion and inability to contain the object, combined with a certain absolute intimacy of the the experience. What is essentially within us is simultaneously essentially impossible to contain.
How do we articulate this? The good is always related to will, the true to mind, but the object of awe seems to strike us squarely in the chest. It is of the heart, understood to mean what is innermost in us. Heart seems to be a certain nexus or supereminent union of intellect and will and all of our powers. What is divided by truth and good is in some sense unified by the object of awe through its combination of intimacy and superabundance.
Or maybe this is all crazy.
Niggardly Phil said,
July 16, 2008 at 8:35 am
That’s crazy talk!
Group it under the good. Beautiful=lovable, and joy follows on attaining it. Seeing it is one sense of attaining it (“getting it”). We use enjoyment readily of beauty, and that smacks of the appetitive powers.
“catapults us beyond ourselves” seems to imply motion outward into reality, which to my mind implies appetite.
a thomist said,
July 16, 2008 at 9:00 am
The difficulty with this is that it would seem that to group it under the good without qualification would destroy a per se relation to intellect. I think this object of awe is what it is specifically by being disproportionate to reason. Reason must be involved in its definition- and not as merely receptive or participative.
another thomist said,
July 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm
n. Phil et. al.:
One has to consider a number of texts from St. Thomas, of course, when wading in these water, but consider especially in light of this discussion the first objection and the reply to it in Question 5 Article 4 of the first part of the Summa:
“Objection 1. It seems that goodness has not the aspect of a final cause, but rather of the other causes. For, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), “Goodness is praised as beauty.” But beauty has the aspect of a formal cause. Therefore goodness has the aspect of a formal cause.”
“Reply to Objection 1. Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for goodness properly relates to the appetite (goodness being what all things desire); and therefore it has the aspect of an end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful things are those which please when seen. Hence beauty consists in due proportion; for the senses delight in things duly proportioned, as in what is after their own kind–because even sense is a sort ofreason, just as is every cognitive faculty. Now since knowledge is by assimilation, and similarity relates to form, beauty properly belongs to the nature of a formal cause.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm
another thomist said,
July 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm
see also question 180 of the second part of the second part, article 2:
“Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) that “the contemplative life gives beauty to the soul,” wherefore it is signified by Rachel, of whom it is said (Genesis 29:17) that she was “of a beautiful countenance.” Now the beauty of the soul consists in the moral virtues, especially temperance, as Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 43,45,46). Therefore it seems that the moral virtues pertain to the contemplative life.”
“Reply to Objection 3. Beauty, as stated above (Question 145, Article 2), consists in a certain clarity and due proportion. Now each of these is found radically in the reason; because both the light that makes beauty seen, and the establishing of due proportion among things belong to reason. Hence since the contemplative life consists in an act of the reason, there is beauty in it by its very nature and essence; wherefore it is written (Wisdom 8:2) of the contemplation of wisdom: “I became a lover of her beauty.”
On the other hand, beauty is in the moral virtues by participation, in so far as they participate in the order of reason; and especially is it in temperance, which restrains the concupiscences which especially darken the light of reason. Hence it is that the virtue of chastity most of all makes man apt for contemplation, since venereal pleasures most of all weigh the mind down to sensible objects, as Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 10). ”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3180.htm
Its not crazy talk, methinks.
another thomist said,
July 21, 2008 at 8:17 pm
and because I can’t help it, again in the Summa in the first part of the second part question 27 article 1:
“Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that not “the good” only but also “the beautiful is beloved by all.””
“Reply to Objection 3. The beautiful is the same as the good, and they differ in aspect only. For since good is what all seek, the notion of good is that which calms the desire; while the notion of the beautiful is that which calms the desire, by being seen or known. Consequently those senses chiefly regard the beautiful, which are the most cognitive, viz. sight and hearing, as ministering to reason ; for we speak of beautiful sights and beautiful sounds. But in reference to the other objects of the other senses, we do not use the expression “beautiful,” for we do not speak of beautiful tastes, and beautiful odors. Thus it is evident that beauty adds to goodness a relation to the cognitive faculty: so that “good” means that which simply pleases the appetite; while the “beautiful” is something pleasant to apprehend.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2027.htm
another thomist said,
July 21, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I think it is at least arguable, if one accepts and parses the above, to say that, since St. Thomas says that what is “true” refers to being as known and what is “good” refers to being as desirable, that what is beautiful refers to being as known AND delighted in. In other words, we know what was hitherto desirable but is now delighted in because possessed through understanding, or “seen” in a physical or intellectual sense by a rational soul.
a thomist said,
July 22, 2008 at 4:33 am
Good work, AT I’ll go print all those texts off.
Here are my two sets of questions about beauty:
1.) What is the difference between beauty and the “object-of-awe” that is, the sublime? This plays a critical role in religious experience, and in our mystical insights into the real. What are we to call this in beauty language? is it simply an aspect of clarity, which St. Thomas says at one point is the dominant note in beauty? Splendor? Is it act?
The core idea in the object of awe (“awesome” has fallen on hard times in modern English) or the sublime is disproportion to reason, that is, an awareness of excessive act or clarity. Can we cobble together some texts where STA speaks of extreme clarity as being disproportionate to reason, and causing awe or wonder? Thomists in the past have tended to emphasize the aspect of ignorance in wonder, but I think they should have emphasized disproportion more.
2.) What does beauty correspond to per se? there must be something in man which serves as a unifying cause between will as such and intellect as such, even if it is only logically different. I wonder if we could say this unity is “the heart” understood not in the sentimental sense, but as signifying what is somehow innermost in man.
another thomist said,
July 22, 2008 at 5:16 am
don’t when I will have time again to attempt to “answer” in some limited way, but in the above quote note that he ties clarity to reason:
“Beauty, as stated above (Question 145, Article 2), consists in a certain clarity and due proportion. Now each of these is found radically in the reason; because both the light that makes beauty seen, and the establishing of due proportion among things belong to reason.”
I would say that beauty is found in all that is insofar as we understand it. (The same objections that one brings up about the good “Is Satan really good?,” are met largely the same way).
Yet there are experiences that stand out that you refer to above, although I’m not quite sure what your distinction is between the sublime (super-beauty?) and beauty. Anyhow, to take a first stab before I have to go to work, I wouldn’t regard these experiences as disproportionate to reason per se–there are times it is apparent to us that we see or understand things that are disproportionate to our fallen human reason, sure. But in reality these events, insofar as they are so clear, involve us seeing or understanding or receiving more Reason than our puny minds can handle. We actually see or understand Reality in some way and this blows our minds. Looking at the sun, etc.
As to what beauty corresponds to…whatever that principle of unity is, we know that it exists because mind and will are united in one being called man. The whole man, or something like it, is what it corresponds to. The heart is a cool name for it because it may make sense of a lot of scripture passages…what is most innermost, unifying, central…
I remember that St. Thomas on the Beatific vision blew my mind, and it seems that what he says there relates directly to this conversation as well…for that is the experience or state of being that envelops the whole man of which all the experiences on earth are merely a paltry approximation, shadows on the cave, etc.
another thomist said,
July 22, 2008 at 5:22 am
The “Beatific vision” is relevant because this is the ultimate understanding that causes delight, and it is the true end of man. To try to define it merely by the good or the true fails. It is not merely knowing God or merely delighting in the possession of what one desires, but both together in a unified whole that is more than just the addition of both the former, but deserving of its own word or notion to describe it.
“…since the contemplative life consists in an act of the reason, there is beauty in it by its very nature and essence; wherefore it is written (Wisdom 8:2) of the contemplation of wisdom: ‘I became a lover of her beauty.'”
Niggardly Phil said,
July 22, 2008 at 8:15 am
Your comments and references are excellent. Thanks for adding them.
Niggardly Phil said,
July 22, 2008 at 9:07 am
Ran a search for sublime, perhaps an argument could be made that the sublime (a corresponds per se to the activity of contemplation?
beauty:good::sublime::truth?
cf II-IIae 180 a3 & 4
a thomist said,
July 22, 2008 at 11:26 am
I do think sublimity is disproportionate- and even that this is its dominant note. The splendor and clarity of the experience is experienced as “too much” for us, as “more than we can bear”. There is a strain and even pain in the sublime. We find ourselves in the presence of a greater.
Or maybe not. But I think so. I think it is a matter of experience in the end, and its a difficult experience to analyze.
As to the object that the sublime or beauty relates to: it struck me that I might be seeing intellect and will as too material. Intellect and will are perfectly distinct, and yet perfectly contain each other. I suggest that that beauty an the sublime relate to intellect and will as compenetrating. It is precisely so far as intellect and will are mutually contained within one another in the soul that the beauty can correspond to it.
another thomist said,
July 22, 2008 at 2:39 pm
That last part sounds right to me, at any rate, but it requires much thinking on, obviously.
I don’t disagree with your description of sublimity involving disproportion in the sense that we can’t “hold” reality with our reason when the veil is torn off, or when we truly see what is “realer” than the things of sense. Or your point about wonder. Paul Johnson has a wonderful bit in his history of art book about “the terrible” beauty of Michelangelo, I believe, that fits perfectly with your point.
My point above is simply that clarity relates to reason–it relates to the power to know/understand/see. Extreme clarity occurs when we are allowed access to the reason of God, or the reason behind all things that makes them what they are, and we can’t handle it, I think. I totally agree with the shock and awe factor, etc. I just want to be clear that what philosophers are too quick to call an “irrational” experience is, in fact, too rational for us to handle. And that beauty involves understanding by definition. Insofar as we really know things and delight in them, we experience beauty. I would be inclined to say the sublime is a difference in degree (significant to be sure) and not in kind, but I’m not sure.
I really think the key to understanding beauty in the sense we all have been poking at is to understand what St. Thomas says about the beatific vision (and intellect and will, the good and true in relation to it), as well as the passages above. This is a really strong passage:
“…since the contemplative life consists in an act of the reason, there is beauty in it by its very nature and essence; wherefore it is written (Wisdom 8:2) of the contemplation of wisdom: ‘I became a lover of her beauty.’”
But rambling now and have to head home from work.
The problem I have with “beauty:good::sublime::truth” is that I don’t know what you mean by sublime as opposed to beauty besides a difference of degree. Also, from the passages above I think it is very difficult to talk about beauty without reference to understanding/truth. But maybe this line would make sense in a matter of degrees…the higher one goes the more one associates beauty with truth rather than the good. Not convinced about that.