Abstract
In this paper, I present a piece of natural theology, whose pro tanto conclusion is the existence of god-the-artist, that is a lower case “g” god, a creator who creates for the sake of beauty, but who is not worthy of worship, a god who can be admired but should not be loved. I then consider some only partially successful responses to this dismal conclusion. Finally, I show to reconcile the idea of a god motivated by love of beauty with the religious tradition of an upper case “G” God, who is not merely to be worshiped but loves us and invites a loving response.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
My use of the term ‘lovely’ is also intended as a gloss on Peter Lipton’s (2004) statement of inference to the best explanation, that the loveliest is the likeliest.
For instance, von Balthasar says, ‘The humiliation of the servant only makes the concealed glory shine more resplendently’ (1989, p. 114). Gregory Wolfe (2007–2008) reflects this, ‘To my mind, a deeper understanding of beauty came into being with Christianity. The cross, the instrument of torture and shame, was taken up into a higher vision of beauty’.
Trust in Revelation requires the thesis that there is not a utilitarian god who deceives us with false revelations.
Thus, transcendence metaphors form a narrower class than metaphor as characterized, say, by Lakoff (2012).
Many thanks to a referee for drawing my attention to Nye and to Nussbaum.
He was devoted to the goddess under various names, for instance, to Parvati in his hymn to Annapurna, to Lakshmi in his Kanakadhara Stotram and to Saraswati in the hymn beginning ‘O Goddess, you live in the lotus of purity’.
Compare but also contrast the remark attributed to Pascal, ‘Go then and take holy water, and have masses said; belief will come and stupefy your scruples’ (James, 1896, pp. 333–334.)
A.k.a Lord Shaftesbury, but to distinguish him from the outstanding Nineteenth Century social reformer, I refer to the latter as ‘Shaftesbury’ and the philosopher as ‘Ashley-Cooper’.
Aristotle’s megalopsychos and the idea of a mahatma reflect similar valorization of the noble.
Special thanks again to the same referee as before, who pointed out the need to consider a Jewish perspective and referred me to Raphael (2003).
Two of Raphael’s remarks are especially relevant. (1) (2005, p. 148) She mentions ‘the kabbalistic notion that the catastrophes that befall the Jews are also catastrophes for God’. (2) (2005, p. 149) She says, ‘Traditionally, the suffering of the immanent God is figured as the suffering of the exiled Shekinah.’ I take the Shekinah to be either a manifestation of the divine glory or that glory itself.
Individual shame must detract from but need not totally overcome joy in an afterlife for the Nazis if they repent.
‘[T]he external harmony must correspond to a subjective need and both give rise to a new harmony of a higher order’ (1989b, p. 1095). My emphasis.
Von Balthasar’s adherence to the analogy of being pervades his theology. For instance, he explicitly criticises Karl Barth’s attempt to avoid it (von Balthasar 1992, p. 163).
Note how he explicitly rejects the Scotist thesis that the Incarnation was salvific even without the Crucifixion (von Balthasar 1990, Ch. 1, Section One).
References
Ashley-Cooper, A. (1999). Characteristics of men, manners, opinions, times (ed. Philip Ayers) Oxford University Press.
Brown, D. (2018). Glory and beauty in the world and in God: A critique of Hans Urs von Balthasar. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 18, 173–186.
Brown, J. C., & Parker, R. (1989). For God so loved the world? in Christianity, patriarchy, and abuse: A feminist critique, edited by Joanne Carlson Brown, Carole R. Bohn, Pilgrim Press.
Croce, B. (1966) Aesthetica in Nunc, in Philosophy, poetry, history, trans. Cecil Sprigge, Oxford University Press.
Deutsch, D. (2015). Objective beauty. Nature, 526(8), S16.
Ewing, A. C. (1966). Two ‘proofs’ of God’s existence. Religious Studies, 1, 29–46.
Forrest, P. (1991). Aesthetic understanding. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 51, 525–540.
Forrest, P. (2019). Intellectual, humanist and religious commitment: Acts of Assent. Bloomsbury.
Gill, M. B. (2017). Lord Shaftesbury [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Edward N. Zalta), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/shaftesbury/.
Hume, D. (1894). Of the standard of taste. Routledge.
Hume, D. (1998). Dialogues concerning natural religion, ed. R. H. Popkin (2nd ed.) Hackett.
Husain, S. (1997). The goddess. Duncan Baird.
James, W. (1896). The will to believe. The New World, 5, 327–347.
Kant, I. (1987). Critique of judgment (trans. Werner Pluhar) Hackett.
Klostermaier, K. (2007). A survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Jantzen, G. (1984). God’s world God’s body . Darton Longman and Todd.
Lakoff, G. (2012). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In O. Andrew (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 205–251). Cambridge University Press.
Leslie, J. (1979). Value and existence. Blackwell.
Lipner, J. (1984). The world as God's 'body'. Pursuit of dialogue with Rāmānuja, Religious Studies, 20, 145–161.
Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin.
McCord Adams, M. (1999). Marilyn. Cornell University Press.
Nichols, A. (2011). A key to Balthasar: Hans Urs von Balthasar on Beauty. Goodness and Truth.
Nietzsche, F. (1994). On the genealogy of morality, trans. Carol Diethe, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1986). The fragility of goodness. Cambridge University Press.
Nye, A. (1988). The hidden host: Irigaray and Diotima at Plato’s symposium. Hypatia, 3, 45–61.
Nygren, A. (1953). Agape and eros (trans Philip S Watson), SPCK.
Oddie. (2005). Value, reality, and desire. Clarendon Press.
Pollock, J. L. (1974). Knowledge and justification. Princeton University Press.
Potter, B. D. (2016). Broken open by beauty: Art and metaphysics in the theological aesthetics of Hans Urs von Balthasar, PhD dissertation, University of St. Michael's College.
Raphael, M. (2003). The female face of God in Auschwitz: A Jewish feminist theology of the Holocaust. Taylor and Francis.
Rice, H. (2000). God and goodness. Oxford University Press.
Rothaus Moser, M. (2016). Love itself is understanding: Hans Urs von Balthasar’s theology of the saints. Fortress Press.
Sartwell, C. (2017). Beauty, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Edward N. Zalta), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/beauty/2017>.
Swinburne, R. (2004). The existence of God (revised). Clarendon Press.
von Balthasar, H. U. (1989). Revelation and the beautiful. Explorations in theology, vol 1: The word made flesh (pp. 95–126). New York: Ignatius Press.
von Balthasar, H. U. (1990). Mysterium Paschale: The mystery of Easter, trans. Aidan Nichols, Ignatius Press.
von Balthasar, H. U. (1992). The theology of Karl Barth. Ignatius Press.
Wolfe, G. (2007–8). The wound of beauty, Image, 56 2007 http:// imagejournal.org/page/journal/editorial-statements/the-wound-of-beauty.
Wynn, M. (2004). God and goodness: A natural theological perspective. Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
I owe the phrase ‘The glory of love’ to Lou Reed’s ‘Coney Island Baby’. This paper evolved from my contribution to the 2018 Biennial Conference in Philosophy, Religion and Culture at the Catholic Institute of Sydney. Many thanks to the reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forrest, P. The Natural Theology of Beauty, and the Glory of Love. SOPHIA 61, 481–497 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-021-00845-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-021-00845-5