March 10th, 2025
by Raef Chenery
by Raef Chenery
There exists in this world many overwhelming evidences for God. Historically, the big three philosophical cases are known as the Cosmological Argument (the existence of the universe), the Teliological Argument (the fine tuning of the universe), and the Moral Argument (the universal experience of morality). Each of these arguments are historic, profound, well documented, and well debated. While skeptics certainly attempt to reject these arguments, they do so with difficulty because of the overwhelming persuasive nature of the arguments themselves.
There is another historic argument that I find equally persuasive, yet is not discussed nearly as often. That is, the argument for God from beauty. In our highly rationalistic society, this argument has fallen by the wayside. But that is a shame because I actually find this argument stirs my affections as much as the other three, if not more. While the argument from beauty might come in many different forms depending on the author you read, I would suggest the following synopsis of which I will work out throughout this post. There is a universal human experience towards the beautiful and lovely. But this phenomenon cannot be explained in any physical earthly way, because beauty is not a physical element. Therefore in order to substantiate beauty, to explain the human movement towards beauty, we must look to discover the basis of beauty outside of the physical realm, in the transcendant, in God.
Plato’s Transcendantals
In order to root this argument in its proper historic setting, it is helpful to go back to some of the earliest writings on the idea of the beautiful. Plato, the fourth century BC Greek philosopher discussed the three transcendentals in his writings. [Note: it is not common that I begin an argument with Plato instead of the Scriptures, nevertheless to understand the background of the history of this idea, Plato is a helpful reference]. These “transcendentals” describe aspects of our human experience that can only be explained by pointing to something beyond our limited physical (as in atoms and molecules) experience. In other words, the philosophical materialist—he who says that nothing exists outside of physical matter operating in time and space—cannot make sense of the universal human pursuit of these transcendentals because they do not exist physically. This idea will be discussed a bit more fully later on.
As Christians later considered Plato’s philosophical writings, they correctly recognized that while Plato was not able to make all the connections of his ideas correctly (for he was writing without the benefit of access to God’s Word), his ideas provided wonderful fodder for theological reflection. Plato’s three transcendentals are as follows.
In order to understand the idea behind the “transcendentals” let us consider the human pursuit of truth. Every time we pursue “truth” we assume that utter truth, absolute truth, infinite truth, exists somewhere, and that in our pursuit we are moving towards that absolute. The odd thing about truth, all humanity claims it exists, and yet truth is a non-physical reality. Truth, like goodness and beauty, does not exist in atoms and molecules in our physical realm. We cannot point to truth and say, “See, truth is over there,” as we might a baseball or a tree. Therefore, in order for our pursuit of “truth” to be meaningful and substantiated, we must assume that an infinite truth does exist outside of our physical reality, a pure and unadulterated truth which validates any sense of truth in this world. Plato, lacked the Biblical revelation to explain this “infinite of truth” fully, but as Christians we look at God as He is revealed to us in the Scriptures, and say that He is absolute truth, the basis that substantiates any and every pursuit of truth in this life. We recall the words of Jesus in John 14:6 when he said,
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Beauty and goodness function like truth. Neither beauty nor goodness exists in atoms and molecules. They are non-physical ideas. Yet, every time we seek after goodness and pursue beauty we assume that utter beauty, that infinite beauty, that some ultimate standard of beauty, exists somewhere. If absolute beauty does not exist then our universal experience of pursuing the lovely would be vanity, like striving after the wind. As Christians, we see with clarity, that God is not only the absolute truth, but He is also absolute goodness and absolute beauty. As the Psalmist reminds us that his greatest desire is “to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD ” (Psalm 27:4).
God, in all of his infinite truth, goodness, and beauty, is the only rational explanation for the universal human pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty. He is the transcendant God who substantiates our entire existence.
Refuting Counter Claims
A Devil’s Advocate at this point might make a few counter claims. Let’s consider a few of them below.
Counter Claim 1: Beauty is Subjective (in the Eye of the Beholder)
The first counter claim would be that “beauty” is subjective, and not an objective characteristic. The well known agnostic/atheistic Richard Dawkins attempts to refute the argument from beauty in his book The God Delusion.
“I have given up counting the number of times I receive the more or less truculent challenge: ‘How do you account for Shakespeare, then?’ (Substitute Shubert, Michelangelo, etc. to taste.) The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further. But the logic behind it is never spelled out, and the more you think about it the more vacuous you realize it to be. Obviously Beethoven’s late quartets are sublime. So are Shakespeare’s sonnets. They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn’t. They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Beethoven and of Shakespeare.” (p 86)
Has Dawkins, with one quick paragraph, routed this historic argument for God? No, in fact he has only proven its merit. Dawkins accepts the category of “beautiful” as a legitimate category. But he does so, not on the basis of his own presuppositions—that no ultimate standard of beauty exists (i.e. God)—but rather upon the Christian presupposition. In other words, when Dawkins says that “Beethoven’s late quartets are sublime,” he is borrowing from the Christian worldview which says that beauty legitimately exists. Dawkins, in order to be consistent with his own worldview, would do better to say, “Beethoven’s late quartets appear to be sublime, but since we live in a world in which true beauty does not objectively exist, they are not truly sublime.”
Secondly however, beauty is not entirely subjective. Though various cultures and people groups over time have nuanced their perception of beauty, there does indeed seem to be a few underlying premises that describe the human movement towards the lovely. The historic theologian Thomas Aquinas systemitized beauty using the following three standards.
We might argue with Aquinas’ attempt to make beauty objective, but we can’t write it off completely. His classifications hold merit. Across every culture, these seem to be consistent marks of that which is considered lovely.
Counter Claim 2: The Pursuit of Beauty is Simply an Evolutionary Survival Trait
The second counter claim is that the pursuit of beauty is simply an evolutionary survival trait. The Wikipedia page for the ‘Argument From Beauty says it this way,
“The biggest problem with the argument from beauty is that it ignores the fact that the perception of beauty is a psychological phenomenon that is easily described in terms of evolutionary principles and neurological models of sensory processing.”
Again, has this short sentence, dismissed the entire argument? By no means. Two problems exist. First, and most fundamental according to this author, is that the theory of evolution which this counter-claim is based upon is false (I know some readers will be flabbergasted at such a statement, but I have discussed this topic more thoroughly elsewhere). But secondly, evolution according to its adherents, is a quite a simple utilitarian system. Within the proposed framework of evolution, we might be able explain certain creative features in species, such as the feathers of a peacock, or the spots of a cheetah (“might” being the key word in that sentence!). But the beauty we experience in this universe is far bigger than even the wildest claims of evolution. Much of the beauty we see, experience, and create, has absolutely zero evolutionary benefit.
We are drawn towards the lovely by something other than pure “evolutionary guidance.”
Counter Claim 3: Evil and Ugliness Exist Alongside Beauty
The third counter claim is that, while beauty exists, so does ugliness. When we look at the world around us, we can recognize the beauty of a sunset, but we can also recognize the devastation caused by a lava spill down the side of a mountain. We might recognize the beauty of a stallion in the wild, but we also recognize what appears to be the grotesque form of a Blob Fish or a Humpback Anglerfish (but could we say these are beautiful in their own right?). If beauty is supposed to prove God’s existence, does not ugliness prove God’s nonexistence.
Once again, it is the Biblical worldview that can account for a world that is inhabited by both beauty and corruption. The non-biblical worldview cannot account for either. The non-biblical worldview has no standard of beauty to appeal to, no ultimate and absolute beautiful (i.e. God). Therefore, the non-biblical worldview has no legitimate basis to categorize one thing as beautiful and another ugly, or one thing as good and another bad. All is simply as it is. No thing is more degrees of beautiful or less degrees of beautiful, because “beautiful” doesn’t actually exist. If we are simply atoms moving through time and space, with no purpose, no meaning, no actual guiding principle, no standard beyond our experience, then who is to say one group of atoms (i.e. a person) behaving one way is any better than a group of atoms behaving another way.
But the biblical worldview accounts for both the category of goodness and sin, and a full explanation of how both came to be. God’s design was good. In Eden, every thing, from humanity, to the animals, to the stars, to the ecosystem, did as it was designed to do with no single hint of depravity. All was good, and all was right (even Blob Fish!). God’s masterpiece, the pinnacle of his creation, that which most exemplified and imaged God himself, was mankind. The variety of creatures all played their part, but mankind held a special and unique role to showcase God as His image bearers.
Sin ushered in corruption. Adam’s decision to function as his own god, to live by his own law, to choose his own path, was not just a break in God’s good design, it was a cosmic distortion of the entire creation. We might imagine someone taking a priceless piece of art and stretching and crumpling the canvas such that nothing, not the background nor the foreground, is as beautiful or as good as it once was. Nevertheless, not all was lost. If one gazes upon that crumpled canvas we still discover the original beauty if even only in part. The pain, the hardship, and the ugliness are in the creases and the crumples, the result of the original distortion, but the beauty is still recognizable as coming from the hands of the creator. Such is our current condition. The beauty if still visible as coming from the hands of the Master Artist himself, but the corruption and distortion is due to man’s effort to rebel against their maker.
Conclusion
Is beauty an apologetic for God’s existence? Yes, overwhelmingly so. But more so, the most beautiful story ever told is the story of Christ. Every other story of human sacrifice that humanity has ever told is a shadow pointing to this substance. Christ is the beautiful one. Not in his aesthetic look, but in his being, in his work, in his redemption, and in his rule. Beauty is substantiated in Christ! The more we gaze upon Christ, the more we see how every other thing that is lovely and good and true in this world ultimately points to Him. When we instinctively move towards the beautiful, we are proving the existence of the Beautiful One.
There is another historic argument that I find equally persuasive, yet is not discussed nearly as often. That is, the argument for God from beauty. In our highly rationalistic society, this argument has fallen by the wayside. But that is a shame because I actually find this argument stirs my affections as much as the other three, if not more. While the argument from beauty might come in many different forms depending on the author you read, I would suggest the following synopsis of which I will work out throughout this post. There is a universal human experience towards the beautiful and lovely. But this phenomenon cannot be explained in any physical earthly way, because beauty is not a physical element. Therefore in order to substantiate beauty, to explain the human movement towards beauty, we must look to discover the basis of beauty outside of the physical realm, in the transcendant, in God.
Plato’s Transcendantals
In order to root this argument in its proper historic setting, it is helpful to go back to some of the earliest writings on the idea of the beautiful. Plato, the fourth century BC Greek philosopher discussed the three transcendentals in his writings. [Note: it is not common that I begin an argument with Plato instead of the Scriptures, nevertheless to understand the background of the history of this idea, Plato is a helpful reference]. These “transcendentals” describe aspects of our human experience that can only be explained by pointing to something beyond our limited physical (as in atoms and molecules) experience. In other words, the philosophical materialist—he who says that nothing exists outside of physical matter operating in time and space—cannot make sense of the universal human pursuit of these transcendentals because they do not exist physically. This idea will be discussed a bit more fully later on.
As Christians later considered Plato’s philosophical writings, they correctly recognized that while Plato was not able to make all the connections of his ideas correctly (for he was writing without the benefit of access to God’s Word), his ideas provided wonderful fodder for theological reflection. Plato’s three transcendentals are as follows.
- Truth (logos): Plato’s first transcendental is truth. Humans innately move towards truth, that which accurately defines reality. We are truth seekers. Truth is so hardwired into the human experience that we cannot quite imagine a society that consistently preferred deceit over truth.
- Goodness (ethos): Plato’s second transcendental is goodness. Humans are drawn towards that which is right, just, and that which fulfills its proper purpose. The ultimate aim of goodness is that a thing performs its proper end for which it was made.
- Beauty (pathos): Plato’s third transcendental is beauty. Humans are drawn towards the lovely. We are far more than mathematical minds that operate like an encoded computer program. We are not Star Trek’s character, Spok! We are lovers of the lovely. We create gardens, art, poetry, and music because of the innate affection for the lovely that seems to be universally hard-wired into our experience.
In order to understand the idea behind the “transcendentals” let us consider the human pursuit of truth. Every time we pursue “truth” we assume that utter truth, absolute truth, infinite truth, exists somewhere, and that in our pursuit we are moving towards that absolute. The odd thing about truth, all humanity claims it exists, and yet truth is a non-physical reality. Truth, like goodness and beauty, does not exist in atoms and molecules in our physical realm. We cannot point to truth and say, “See, truth is over there,” as we might a baseball or a tree. Therefore, in order for our pursuit of “truth” to be meaningful and substantiated, we must assume that an infinite truth does exist outside of our physical reality, a pure and unadulterated truth which validates any sense of truth in this world. Plato, lacked the Biblical revelation to explain this “infinite of truth” fully, but as Christians we look at God as He is revealed to us in the Scriptures, and say that He is absolute truth, the basis that substantiates any and every pursuit of truth in this life. We recall the words of Jesus in John 14:6 when he said,
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Beauty and goodness function like truth. Neither beauty nor goodness exists in atoms and molecules. They are non-physical ideas. Yet, every time we seek after goodness and pursue beauty we assume that utter beauty, that infinite beauty, that some ultimate standard of beauty, exists somewhere. If absolute beauty does not exist then our universal experience of pursuing the lovely would be vanity, like striving after the wind. As Christians, we see with clarity, that God is not only the absolute truth, but He is also absolute goodness and absolute beauty. As the Psalmist reminds us that his greatest desire is “to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD ” (Psalm 27:4).
God, in all of his infinite truth, goodness, and beauty, is the only rational explanation for the universal human pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty. He is the transcendant God who substantiates our entire existence.
Refuting Counter Claims
A Devil’s Advocate at this point might make a few counter claims. Let’s consider a few of them below.
Counter Claim 1: Beauty is Subjective (in the Eye of the Beholder)
The first counter claim would be that “beauty” is subjective, and not an objective characteristic. The well known agnostic/atheistic Richard Dawkins attempts to refute the argument from beauty in his book The God Delusion.
“I have given up counting the number of times I receive the more or less truculent challenge: ‘How do you account for Shakespeare, then?’ (Substitute Shubert, Michelangelo, etc. to taste.) The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further. But the logic behind it is never spelled out, and the more you think about it the more vacuous you realize it to be. Obviously Beethoven’s late quartets are sublime. So are Shakespeare’s sonnets. They are sublime if God is there and they are sublime if he isn’t. They do not prove the existence of God; they prove the existence of Beethoven and of Shakespeare.” (p 86)
Has Dawkins, with one quick paragraph, routed this historic argument for God? No, in fact he has only proven its merit. Dawkins accepts the category of “beautiful” as a legitimate category. But he does so, not on the basis of his own presuppositions—that no ultimate standard of beauty exists (i.e. God)—but rather upon the Christian presupposition. In other words, when Dawkins says that “Beethoven’s late quartets are sublime,” he is borrowing from the Christian worldview which says that beauty legitimately exists. Dawkins, in order to be consistent with his own worldview, would do better to say, “Beethoven’s late quartets appear to be sublime, but since we live in a world in which true beauty does not objectively exist, they are not truly sublime.”
Secondly however, beauty is not entirely subjective. Though various cultures and people groups over time have nuanced their perception of beauty, there does indeed seem to be a few underlying premises that describe the human movement towards the lovely. The historic theologian Thomas Aquinas systemitized beauty using the following three standards.
- Proportion: That which is we consider beautiful has an order and harmony to it. If we think of a statue in a museum. We would generally find a statue of a man with a far overgrown ear and a mishapen leg quite monstrous, compared to a statue of a man whose proportions are consistent. This can be applied to all forms of beauty, such as art, architecture, and music.
- Clarity: Beauty must be clearly manifested in the perceiver’s mind. In other words, that which is beautiful must be understandable and not hidden by noise, confusion, or imperfection.
- Integrity: Lastly, beauty must be complete and not fragmented. A new architectural design might be spectacular, but if it is only partly finished, with certain corners remaining imperfect, we would say it has not reached its full potential of beauty.
We might argue with Aquinas’ attempt to make beauty objective, but we can’t write it off completely. His classifications hold merit. Across every culture, these seem to be consistent marks of that which is considered lovely.
Counter Claim 2: The Pursuit of Beauty is Simply an Evolutionary Survival Trait
The second counter claim is that the pursuit of beauty is simply an evolutionary survival trait. The Wikipedia page for the ‘Argument From Beauty says it this way,
“The biggest problem with the argument from beauty is that it ignores the fact that the perception of beauty is a psychological phenomenon that is easily described in terms of evolutionary principles and neurological models of sensory processing.”
Again, has this short sentence, dismissed the entire argument? By no means. Two problems exist. First, and most fundamental according to this author, is that the theory of evolution which this counter-claim is based upon is false (I know some readers will be flabbergasted at such a statement, but I have discussed this topic more thoroughly elsewhere). But secondly, evolution according to its adherents, is a quite a simple utilitarian system. Within the proposed framework of evolution, we might be able explain certain creative features in species, such as the feathers of a peacock, or the spots of a cheetah (“might” being the key word in that sentence!). But the beauty we experience in this universe is far bigger than even the wildest claims of evolution. Much of the beauty we see, experience, and create, has absolutely zero evolutionary benefit.
- Why do we live in a world with colors? In a random universe, developed out of chaos there is no reason why color should exist. Why ought this universe not be grays and blacks and whites? Yet color does exist, and it is beautiful. As Archibald Rutledge has said,“I mentioned sunsets and sunrises as extras. Almost the whole complex and wonderful matter of color in the world seems as extra. The color of the sky might have been a dingy gray, or a painful yellow, or a plum-colored purple. But it is sapphire; and my philosophy makes me believe that such a color for the sky is by no means the result of mere chance. Granted that it is the result of the operation of certain laws, forces, and conditions; yet behind it all, back of the realized dream, is the mighty intelligence of the Creator, the vast amplitude of the dreamer’s comprehension. And let us not forget that the two colors at which we can gaze longest are blue and green. There is about them a coolness, a serenity, a spirit of fragrant peace. And as the blue prevails in the sky, the green does upon the earth.”
- Why do we live in a world with stars spread out in various distances and clusters across the sky, instead of a world in which the stars are evenly placed like a grid. These clusters and variety of brightnesses have created entire schools of thought as generations and cultures have gazed upon the stars in curiosity from the beginning of time.
- What utilitarian benefit is there for a human to stand in awe at a sunrise peeking over the Rocky Mountains? This appreciation of beauty serves no evolutionary benefit, yet it seems to be a universal human experience.
- Why has virtually every civilization ever discovered created art, and music, and designed clothing, and jewelry? Why do we put flowers in pots outside of our homes, and paint on our walls? These examples and many more, serve no utilitarian benefit.
We are drawn towards the lovely by something other than pure “evolutionary guidance.”
Counter Claim 3: Evil and Ugliness Exist Alongside Beauty
The third counter claim is that, while beauty exists, so does ugliness. When we look at the world around us, we can recognize the beauty of a sunset, but we can also recognize the devastation caused by a lava spill down the side of a mountain. We might recognize the beauty of a stallion in the wild, but we also recognize what appears to be the grotesque form of a Blob Fish or a Humpback Anglerfish (but could we say these are beautiful in their own right?). If beauty is supposed to prove God’s existence, does not ugliness prove God’s nonexistence.
Once again, it is the Biblical worldview that can account for a world that is inhabited by both beauty and corruption. The non-biblical worldview cannot account for either. The non-biblical worldview has no standard of beauty to appeal to, no ultimate and absolute beautiful (i.e. God). Therefore, the non-biblical worldview has no legitimate basis to categorize one thing as beautiful and another ugly, or one thing as good and another bad. All is simply as it is. No thing is more degrees of beautiful or less degrees of beautiful, because “beautiful” doesn’t actually exist. If we are simply atoms moving through time and space, with no purpose, no meaning, no actual guiding principle, no standard beyond our experience, then who is to say one group of atoms (i.e. a person) behaving one way is any better than a group of atoms behaving another way.
But the biblical worldview accounts for both the category of goodness and sin, and a full explanation of how both came to be. God’s design was good. In Eden, every thing, from humanity, to the animals, to the stars, to the ecosystem, did as it was designed to do with no single hint of depravity. All was good, and all was right (even Blob Fish!). God’s masterpiece, the pinnacle of his creation, that which most exemplified and imaged God himself, was mankind. The variety of creatures all played their part, but mankind held a special and unique role to showcase God as His image bearers.
Sin ushered in corruption. Adam’s decision to function as his own god, to live by his own law, to choose his own path, was not just a break in God’s good design, it was a cosmic distortion of the entire creation. We might imagine someone taking a priceless piece of art and stretching and crumpling the canvas such that nothing, not the background nor the foreground, is as beautiful or as good as it once was. Nevertheless, not all was lost. If one gazes upon that crumpled canvas we still discover the original beauty if even only in part. The pain, the hardship, and the ugliness are in the creases and the crumples, the result of the original distortion, but the beauty is still recognizable as coming from the hands of the creator. Such is our current condition. The beauty if still visible as coming from the hands of the Master Artist himself, but the corruption and distortion is due to man’s effort to rebel against their maker.
Conclusion
Is beauty an apologetic for God’s existence? Yes, overwhelmingly so. But more so, the most beautiful story ever told is the story of Christ. Every other story of human sacrifice that humanity has ever told is a shadow pointing to this substance. Christ is the beautiful one. Not in his aesthetic look, but in his being, in his work, in his redemption, and in his rule. Beauty is substantiated in Christ! The more we gaze upon Christ, the more we see how every other thing that is lovely and good and true in this world ultimately points to Him. When we instinctively move towards the beautiful, we are proving the existence of the Beautiful One.
Posted in Article
Recent
Archive
2025
2024
June
Should Christians Use the Enneagram?Episode 86: David Brainerd - A Man Mightily Used of GodLiving in the Worldview of IsaiahListening to Experiential Sermons WellSix D’s of EldershipAre Christians Required to Honor the Sabbath?The Madman on Your Nightly NewsExperiential Preaching with the PuritansAlistair Begg and Attending LGBTQ Weddings
July
August
September
October
No Comments