Should that which cannot be rationally defended be renounced?

[JoeM]

Well? If one cannot rationally defend something using logic should they renounce it as false?

No.

It cannot be assumed that one is suitably versed in rational arguement to be equipped well enough to produce a rational argument for all issues.

There is no ultimate arbiter to judge a defence as rational or not.

 

[Mise]

No. Someone sees something that pleases the senses and then uses the word "beautiful" to describe it. Sounds fine to me.

And why is it pleasing to the senses....

(let me answer the rest of this conversation):

P: Because we evolved that way.
M: Why did we evolve that way?
P: Because it presented a survival advantage.
M: Why is "it presented a survival advantage" any more rational a reason than "it's made of cheese"?

 

[bigfatron]

The following things cannot be defended with logic, and should be renounced at once:

• Love
• Beauty
• Inner Peace
• Music
• Poetry
• God

These are not comparable.

Love, beauty, etc are emotions that we seek to describe in order to better communicate those emotions between humans. Without a human to communicate the concept of 'beauty' it becomes meaningless, that is it's reality cannot be understood by an independent intelligence. This is not true with 'God', meaning here, I presume, a universal creator standing outside creation.

To explain - a random alien could come to Earth after the end of humanity and read our jottings. Let us assume that they are capable of reading and interpreting our texts. They could understand 'beauty' as meaning 'pleasing to one's senses' but would not, from that, be able to immediately refer to an object we might find beautiful and know that we had found it beautiful.

Conversely, though they can understand the concept of 'God' as universal creator with equal dexterity, the concept of 'God' differs qualitatively in that, had the aliens come into contact with the creator, they would immediately be able to recognise the actual creator as fulfilling the concept defined by us as 'God'.

Put simply, 'beauty' is a relative concept the application of which does not exist independent of humanity, therefore it is incapable of 'proof'. 'God' is an absolute concept that - if real - exists independent of humanity and is therefore capable of proof.

As a result I would logically contend that the OP question is relevant to 'God' but not to 'beauty'.

BFR

 

[Phlegmak]

And why is it pleasing to the senses....

(let me answer the rest of this conversation):

P: Because we evolved that way.
M: Why did we evolve that way?
P: Because it presented a survival advantage.
M: Why is "it presented a survival advantage" any more rational a reason than "it's made of cheese"?

Ok, I see what you mean. There's another part of evolution that's generally not addressed. And that is, some things evolve which aren't useful as a survival advantage, but aren't harmful either. So the notion that mammals like the appearance of certain things isn't necessary an advantage or harmful. It just developed over time and was retained because it wasn't harmful.