God's Appreciation of the
Aesthetic
I suppose I first thought of this
subject when we lived in Belize and realized that there were so many
beautiful flowers out there in the hills and mountains that nobody
would ever see. It seemed God made this beautiful hidden beauty simply
for himself to enjoy. It didn't matter that no one else was aware of
the flowers. I was so impressed with this beauty that I began to
video some of these flowers and greatly magnified them on the screen.
There are many other amazing matters
reflecting an interest that God had in his creation that has little
relevance to mankind or the rest of creation. Take color, for instance. There are very few practical values of hues- well perhaps for bees to find sources of sweets, but are not many animals color blind? Color is for beauty, which people enjoy just like God who created it for himself and us.
relevance to mankind or the rest of creation. Take color, for instance. There are very few practical values of hues- well perhaps for bees to find sources of sweets, but are not many animals color blind? Color is for beauty, which people enjoy just like God who created it for himself and us.
Or take tastes. Why should anything be
sweet, or salty, or sour, or like any taste? People would eat out of
hunger even if there were no tastes. Like color, taste has very
little practical value except to give pleasantness to eating beyond
the need to eat and feel better. Taste makes eating pleasant as a
bonus to eating. There are various things we eat for the pleasure of
eating, not for their necessary or value to our bodies. We eat butter
on bread for taste, not nutrition. Likewise as suggested, sugar has
no essential function to the body that can't be met just as well
other ways. The whole soft drink business flourishes not for its
practical value to the body- but for the pleasure of drinking
pleasant tastes. Foods are flavored for aesthetic reasons, not for
practicality and nutrition, usually. There are aesthetic bonuses to
eating beyond necessity.
Or why should sex be pleasurable? The
procreative act could simply be a matter of choice and practicality
like eating when we want to have children,. But there is a bonus of
ecstasy far beyond the “Task” of creating a new life. You might
imagine the sheer joy God had in creating man in his image, a joy of
creating human life "in his image". This elation he passed on to mankind, as we
create new life generation after generation.
You can also consider the sheer
exultation of flinging out the planets and galaxies and the most
distant stars as celestial bodies so vast and distant that the earth
would have been no more than a mud puddle in comparison. At the
other extreme in size, the hobby of creating the smallest units of
matter, far sub atomic where electrons gleefully dance around protons
with the speed of light. That is still intriguing scientists to
discover. Stuff could simply have been made simple stuff. God didn't stop
at just doing it the easy way. No, he tinkered with sub-matter, and
no doubt enjoyed doing it with greater enthusiasm then any inventor of things in the modern world. We take pride and joy in our
creations, trivial as they may be in comparison to the complexity of
matter. Whether they are material like a computer or “i-machines”,
or intellectual as in writings, or artistic as in paintings or
architecture. It seems we have the compulsive joy of creating just
like our Creator, how be it in a miniature pattern, perhaps a bit
like a child playing in the sand on a beach by an ocean.
What is our greatest aesthetic
investment? What is God's greatest project? Did he just set
everything up for the fun of making it and admiring it; just standing
back watching his universal machine work? I can't believe God would
then only stand at a distance in amusement, when there is so much to
communicate with his most intelligent creature- which we assume we
are! And does he only try to communicate with us? How about all
higher mammals who have some intelligence? But the even insects seem
to have some intelligence- bees can communicate to each other and
dogs howl, and endlessly other creatures are able to communicate. Why
would not God want to have a relationship with all creation? I don't
know what molecules would say to each other or to him. Who knows?
Several days ago I was watching over
our grandson, Baby Noah, now 8 months old. He crawled through the
grass, back to me, over me, stabilizing himself by holding on to me.
He toyed with everything his hands touched and then went on to other
matters. It seems he was trying to learn all about his world and his
place in it. He didn't use any words to communicate with me. Yet we
did communicate to each other. How I wished he could talk to
me! He seemed to know me, that I cared about him, that he was safe
with me. So I believe God's greatest aesthetic interest is in
continuing with his creation, ever waiting for all creation to
respond to him. He tries again and again in all ways imaginable, to
tell us that he is there for us. He longs for us to communicate with
him on the level of our maturity. Sometime Baby Noah will speak to
me. He know me- somewhat. But it is his development that is in
process. He was created to relate. He will in his time. We suppose
much of material is inanimate. Maybe not. God's greatest goal is that
all creation would recognize him and respond. At least we know that
we who call our selves mankind can respond. That, I believe is God's
greatest aesthetic goal and appreciation.
No comments:
Post a Comment