Abstract
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.
Highlights
Natural beauty and divinity are frequently associated in ordinary religious feeling, but few philosophers have attempted to argue for this connection
In this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty
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
Summary
Natural beauty and divinity are frequently associated in ordinary religious feeling, but few philosophers have attempted to argue for this connection. The experience of awe at natural beauty, we argue, provides evidence that God exists. If a theocentric explanation for why we find nature saturated with beauty is viable (premise 1) and there is no alternative naturalistic explanation for this (despite significant efforts to devise one) (premise 2) this constitutes defeasible evidence for God’s existence (conclusion). Such an argument is not meant to prove the existence of God; rather, it is an argument to the best explanation. We will argue that the second premise of the No Alternatives Argument is tenable
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
