But the perception of beauty, that experience the first person has when looking at painting A, and the experience the second person has when looking at painting B, are the same. (I’m not sure I agree, but is that what you mean?)

Closer, but still not quite. The way we perceive the paintings may be quite different. You could look at individual objects in the painting, the colors, and the layout to call it beautiful. I could look at the mood the painting portrays, the emotions that it triggers, and the patterns I see within the painting and call it beautiful. That’s what I mean by the difference in perception. We could arrive at the same conclusion but still have two completely different ways of perceiving. That is what is intrinsic. And yes, neither is right or wrong.

I am a theist, but I disagree with the theistic model that you describe. I don’t think God created universal qualities like goodness and beauty. I think they were created by humans, such as religious leaders or the societal norm. The only things that come to mind that are universal which I attribute to God are… life, grace, and love. The very things that I don’t think humans are capable of creating for ourselves.

It would seem that such a view is more compatible with an evolutionary view of human psychology, where all humans have evolved the ability to experience beauty. However the objects which trigger that experience vary from culture to culture, or with the vagaries of personal taste. I think the theistic model presumes that God has created universal qualities, like beauty and goodness. God has given humans the ability to perceive these universal qualities that exist independent of human opinion.

Do you think God could give a final answer on which painting was truly beautiful?

Re: your reply to Richard, which part do you disagree with? Do you mean you think qualities like beauty are intrinsic in objects?

I guess I did not make myself clear. Let me try it again…

I was just pointing out that perhaps the embedding by the creator is not in the thing that is observed but how the observers are wired differently. What is intrinsic may not be the beauty but the perception of beauty.

“Wow, farewell, great subject of philosophy.”

Well, I am relying on an Atheist philosopher after all.

“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident….Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands….Christian morality is a command, its origin is transcendence…it has truth only if God is truth–it stands and falls with faith in God.”

From Nietzsche – Twilight of the Gods

For what it’s worth, I read your comments and enjoyed them. I’d also like to hear Rho’s thoughts on what you wrote, if he’s still out there.

Linda,

Re: your reply to Richard, which part do you disagree with? Do you mean you think qualities like beauty are intrinsic in objects?

Re: the video, there must be a video with a smart theist and a dumb atheist. It’s your mission to find it!

Hey, that’s not fair (referring to the video)! Atheists way too often get portrayed as smarter than the theists…

It really made me cringe. But you know better, right? RIGHT?!? Don’t make me come over there and knock you out!

What is beautiful to one person is plain or even ugly to another. What is mysterious to one person is obvious to another. What is wondrous to one person is mundane to another.

That is absolutely true.

If they were qualities that are intrinsically embedded into the things we see, (such as by a creator) then our responses to them would be universally consistent.

I disagree. I want to investigate the possible (probable) purpose in diversity. We can design a watch to tell time, a compass to give us diretion, and a thermometer to measure(?) the temperature. They all serve different functions. They are each wired (designed) differently by the creator (us) to collectively serve a greater purpose.

My argument is not for creation, by the way. I’m just addressing your argument against it.