What about the 'art' in nature?

[OldWiseGuy]

Science denies design in nature. What about art? To me as an observer nature is as much art as science. Thoughts?

 

[Speedwell]

Science denies design in nature. What about art? To me as an observer nature is as much art as science. Thoughts?

The appreciation of art is a subjective experience. As in what motivated the author of Psalm 19.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The appreciation of art is a subjective experience. As in what motivated the author of Psalm 19.

The subject isn't appreciation of art, but whether or not art exists in the natural world. I see lots of art that I don't appreciate. If most of a population considers something in nature artistic wouldn't that validate that art exists outside of scientific pronouncements to the contrary?

 

[Speedwell]

The subject isn't appreciation of art, but whether or not art exists in the natural world. I see lots of art that I don't appreciate. If most of a population considers something in nature artistic wouldn't that validate that art exists outside of scientific pronouncements to the contrary?

It's hard to tell exactly what you are driving at since the OP is a lie. Science does not deny the existence of design in nature. Science finds design (as order and function) in nature and makes no statement about design (as intention or purpose).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's hard to tell exactly what you are driving at since the OP is a lie. Science does not deny the existence of design in nature. Science finds design (as order and function) in nature and makes no statement about design (as intention or purpose).

But design requires a designer. I thought that is what science based it's denial of design on. The question before you is, is there art in nature?

 

[Speedwell]

But design requires a designer. I thought that is what science based it's denial of design on. The question before you is, is there art in nature?

Design (as order and function) does not require a designer. Design (as intention or purpose) does.
I suppose the parallel would be that art requires an artist, but beauty does not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Design (as order and function) does not require a designer. Design (as intention or purpose) does.
I suppose the parallel would be that art requires an artist, but beauty does not.

But now humans have intention and purpose? That's a pretty big leap. Can art be close behind?

 

[Speedwell]

But now humans have intention and purpose? That's a pretty big leap.

Maybe for you. Did you not believe humans capable of intention?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe for you. Did you not believe humans capable of intention?

That's part of the complexity I'm alluding to in my other thread. The saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How does science deal with intentions generally?

How did we leap the gap between evolutionary 'order and function' to God created 'intention and purpose'? Or, how did the capacity for intent and purpose evolve?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some parts of nature are beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

When an artist -- Ansel Adams, for instance -- takes a photograph of a part of nature, then the photograph is art.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some parts of nature are beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

When an artist -- Ansel Adams, for instance -- takes a photograph of a part of nature, then the photograph is art.

Interesting that you would choose this photo, with the moon and all. What leaps to mind of course is what the moon represents biblically, i.e. the destruction that formed this very mountain.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't see what the moon has to do with the formation of Half Dome, biblical or not.

Anyway, the moon was, I think, a common inspiration for Adams.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't see what the moon has to do with the formation of Half Dome, biblical or not.

Anyway, the moon was, I think, a common inspiration for Adams.

As you said, it's in the eye of the beholder. Different thoughts are triggered in different people. I see everything in nature through the 'lens' of the creation story, especially this time of year.

 

[HitchSlap]

Interesting that you would choose this photo, with the moon and all. What leaps to mind of course is what the moon represents biblically, i.e. the destruction that formed this very mountain.

HD was formed about 14,000 years ago by a glacier during the last ice age. The moon had nothing to do with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science denies design in nature. What about art? To me as an observer nature is as much art as science. Thoughts?

The Muses have a lot of influence over science and the arts today.

They more or less dictate how scientists will interpret nature as a whole, and the Bible specifically.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

HD was formed about 14,000 years ago by a glacier during the last ice age. The moon had nothing to do with it.

The moon represents the dark side, the cause of all destruction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The moon represents the dark side, the cause of all destruction.

Where do you find that in your bible?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science denies design in nature.

Hmmm.
That's too broad a brush for me.

I have no problems talking about "design" in nature. It all depends on what the implications of using that word are.

I think it's perfectly fine to talk about the "design" of a snowflake or the "design" of a crystal or the "design" of a human body. In the sense of emergent design.

In the sense of patterns that tend to pop-up as a result of environmental circumstances, forces of nature and properties of specific matter and stuff.

Like sand ripples left by a retreating sea. Or limbs in biological creatures. Or symmetry in most animals. Such are what I would call "natural design".

The problems with the word only start once it is being loaded with all kind of unjustified implications, like silently slipping in a "designer" with a plan and intent and all that jazz.

What about art? To me as an observer nature is as much art as science. Thoughts?

Art is by definition something created by a mind to convey an idea or emotion.
Design on the other hand, in its most rudimentary form, is really just "patterns".

Sure, you can load up that word as well... and many people do, which is why I tend not to use it concerning natural patterns on forums like this.

But when I talk to another atheist about "the design of life", that person knows perfectly well what I mean and (s)he won't go on to assume that I apparantly believe in some super entity that has some biology factory somewhere with an assembly line to create a bunch of creatures.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where do you find that in your bible?

Genesis 1. The lesser light (the moon) rules the night. Darkness is symbolic of evil, and spiritual ignorance. The moon has been venerated since the beginning as a deity opposed to the true God. Moon goddesses are types of Lucifer. It was the rebellion of Lucifer that brought the original destruction to the surface of the earth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problems with the word only start once it is being loaded with all kind of unjustified implications, like silently slipping in a "designer" with a plan and intent and all that jazz.

That door swings both ways.