I have often thought that aesthetics plays a larger role in our various beliefs than we perhaps give it credit for. For example, we might believe some idea (such as a political doctrine) because it excites us--there is something romantic about it--even though the boring old conventional idea might be more accurate. It's exciting to be a rebel.
I read the following sometime ago and it stuck with me:
PerfectDeath writes:
also they say that evolutionists believe we came from apes... APES little smelly monkeys how can we degrade ourselves to say we came from them...
"apes, little smelly monkeys"--this looks to me like an aesthetic reaction. The idea of human evolution is UGLY. I had not thought of it like that before; if anything, the idea of the sheer ancient quality of the world of proto-man is enough to excite my sensibilities with a feeling something like awe.
So I have two issues which I thought might be addressable:
1. To what extent is the reaction to TOE an aesthetic reaction, apart from religious doctrine? Of course, a creationist might swear up and down that taste has nothing to do with it, but I'm hoping for some honest self-examination.
But as regards self-examination, it works both ways. I can say that for many years the very idea of "religion," which to me conjured up pictures of Biblical times and hideous Medieval paintings, was disgusting to me; but my disgust was purely aesthetic. It had nothing to do with doctrine.
2. The more general issue is that of the role of taste in the adoption of beliefs.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-27-2005 12:01 AM
™ Version 4.2