Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Manuscrito (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934 |
Resumo: | In this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty. If God’s creative work is a viable explanation for why we experience awe at natural beauty, and there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origins of such experiences, then we have defeasible evidence that God exists. To evaluate the argument's tenability, we assess the merits of the two main naturalistic frameworks that can be marshaled to answer the question of why human beings experience awe at natural beauty, Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, and Keltner and Haidt's prototype approach to awe. We show shortcomings of both accounts in explaining the relevant experiences and argue that the reliance of these accounts on an adaptationist reading of our aesthetic appreciation of nature entails a commitment to questionable hidden premises: that affordances themselves can figure in the subject's perceptual experience, and that experiences of awe have adaptive value. We maintain that the argument's “empirical” premise is tenable and conclude with directions for future research regarding the argument's “theological” premise. |
id |
UNICAMP-17_580274117cfd7ff5d93a9b1bb6ecee2d |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8668934 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICAMP-17 |
network_name_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of godAweGodBiophiliaPerceptionNatural beautyIn this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty. If God’s creative work is a viable explanation for why we experience awe at natural beauty, and there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origins of such experiences, then we have defeasible evidence that God exists. To evaluate the argument's tenability, we assess the merits of the two main naturalistic frameworks that can be marshaled to answer the question of why human beings experience awe at natural beauty, Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, and Keltner and Haidt's prototype approach to awe. We show shortcomings of both accounts in explaining the relevant experiences and argue that the reliance of these accounts on an adaptationist reading of our aesthetic appreciation of nature entails a commitment to questionable hidden premises: that affordances themselves can figure in the subject's perceptual experience, and that experiences of awe have adaptive value. We maintain that the argument's “empirical” premise is tenable and conclude with directions for future research regarding the argument's “theological” premise.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2022-04-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 44 n. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-517Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 44 No. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-517Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 44 Núm. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-5172317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934/28264Brazil; ContemporaryCopyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofiahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPorcher, José Eduardo Noronha, Daniel de Luca2022-04-05T17:14:13Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8668934Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2022-04-05T17:14:13Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
title |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
spellingShingle |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god Porcher, José Eduardo Awe God Biophilia Perception Natural beauty |
title_short |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
title_full |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
title_fullStr |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
title_full_unstemmed |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
title_sort |
Awe at natural beauty as defeasible evidence for the existence of god |
author |
Porcher, José Eduardo |
author_facet |
Porcher, José Eduardo Noronha, Daniel de Luca |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Noronha, Daniel de Luca |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Porcher, José Eduardo Noronha, Daniel de Luca |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Awe God Biophilia Perception Natural beauty |
topic |
Awe God Biophilia Perception Natural beauty |
description |
In this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty. If God’s creative work is a viable explanation for why we experience awe at natural beauty, and there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origins of such experiences, then we have defeasible evidence that God exists. To evaluate the argument's tenability, we assess the merits of the two main naturalistic frameworks that can be marshaled to answer the question of why human beings experience awe at natural beauty, Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, and Keltner and Haidt's prototype approach to awe. We show shortcomings of both accounts in explaining the relevant experiences and argue that the reliance of these accounts on an adaptationist reading of our aesthetic appreciation of nature entails a commitment to questionable hidden premises: that affordances themselves can figure in the subject's perceptual experience, and that experiences of awe have adaptive value. We maintain that the argument's “empirical” premise is tenable and conclude with directions for future research regarding the argument's “theological” premise. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-04-05 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion info:eu-repo/semantics/other |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934 |
url |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668934/28264 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazil; Contemporary |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 44 n. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-517 Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 44 No. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-517 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 44 Núm. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 489-517 2317-630X reponame:Manuscrito (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) instacron:UNICAMP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
instacron_str |
UNICAMP |
institution |
UNICAMP |
reponame_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
collection |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br |
_version_ |
1800216568123097088 |