Argument from Beauty From The Fourth Ray – First Proof

Readings First Proof: The beauty of a finely worked object points to the beauty of the craftsmanship. The beauty of the craftsmanship points to the beauty of the name which was the source of the craftsmanship. The beauty of the name of the craftsmans art points to the beauty of the craftsmans attributes manifested in that art. The beauty of his attributes points to the beauty of his talent and abilities. And the beauty of his abilities points self- evidently to the beauty of his essential self and his reality

Readings In exactly the same way, the beauty in all the fine creatures which fill the universe, all exquisitely made, testifies decisively to the beauty of the acts of the All-Glorious Craftsman (Sani-i Zuljalal). And the beauty of the acts points indubitably to the beauty of the titles, that is, Names, that look to those acts. And the beauty of the Names testifies certainly to the beauty of the sacred attributes that are the source of the Names. And the beauty of the attributes testifies to the beauty of the essential qualities and abilities that are the source of the attributes. And the beauty of the essential qualities and abilities testifies self- evidently to the beauty and sacred perfection of the Essence which is the source of the acts and is qualified by the Names and attributes, and to the holy beauty of His reality

The argument explained A beautiful thing Beauty of the act / process which brought it about Beauty of the name of the act/process Beauty of the attributes that are the source of the name/concept Beauty of the essential qualities/abilities that are the source the attributes Beauty of the Essence that is qualified by those qualities/that has those abilities

An example A beautiful painting Beauty of the action that creates the painting Beauty of the name of that action (painting) Beauty of attributes that are the source of painting (will, power, ilm…) Beauty of the essential abilities that are the source of the attributes (e.g. the ability to use power and will etc to create a beautiful painting) Beauty of the Essence that has those essential qualities/abilities

An analogical argument? The analogy is used to aid the readers understanding of the proof that follows. The proof itself is not analogical, but a more general inferential argument that stands on its own, as follows

The premises 1. There are beautiful things in the natural world 2. Those things are the result of certain acts or processes (that is, they didnt create themselves or pop into existence uncaused) that are themselves beautiful 3. Those beautiful acts are qualified by a name of the act, which is also beautiful. (Depending on ones worldview, that name might be nature, natural processes or physics, or alternatively, Creation or Artistry)

The premises 4. The act requires certain attributes, such as power, will, knowledge and life, which are themselves beautiful 5. Those attributes have their source in certain essential qualities and abilities, like the ability to use power, will and knowledge to craft beautifully. (In other words, those attributes cannot be characterized by an inability to craft beautifully) 6. The beauty of those essential abilities and qualities points to the Essence that is actually qualified by those abilities

Two proofs in one There are two intertwining proofs within the argument. One demonstrates the beauty of the Source of the beautiful things in the world. The other demonstrates the personality of that Source (that that Source is a personal Being rather than say, inanimate nature). Ustad argues that the beauty in things cannot be attributed to the things themselves, since they are created beings, and the creation of those beings beautifully necessitates essential attributes like Will, Power and Life (see point 4 above). He continues:

Readings Yes, just as a crafted work cannot have come into existence without an act, so an act cannot occur without the performer of the act. And just as it is impossible for there to be names without the one they signify, so attributes cannot be without the one they qualify. Since the existence of a work of art self-evidently points to the act which crafted it, and the existence of the act points to the existence of the worker of the act and his title, and to the existence of the attribute and name which gave rise to the work; the perfection and beauty of the work of art point also to the beauty and perfection particular to the act which crafted it, and they point to the beauty particular to and fitting for the name of the performer of the act, and, with knowledge of certainty, to the beauty and perfection of his essence and reality, which are fitting and appropriate to them

Readings In just the same way, since it is impossible for the constant activity under the veil of the works of art in the universe to be without the causer of the activity, and the names whose manifestations and inscriptions are visible on creatures to be without the one they signify, and the attributes like power and will which are almost visible to be without the one they qualify; with their limitless existences, all the works of art, creatures and artifacts in the universe point decisively to the existence of their Creator, Maker, and Doer, and to the existence of His Names, and to the existence of His attributes, and to the existence of his essential qualities, and to the necessary existence of His Most Pure and Holy Essence. (Emphasis mine)

The essentiality of will Again, Ustad first draws an analogy to aid the readers understanding. He then provides an inferential argument that stands on its own And again, one of the key premises is the need for the Causer of the works of art to possess attributes such as will, which in turn point to certain essential abilities This is the premise that non-theists would deny most vehemently

Counter-argument – Chance and/or necessity The laws of nature, or matter and its properties, are sufficient to create beautiful things, either due to necessity, or chance + time

Response The laws of nature have no substantial, extramental reality; they are merely abstractions. (Ayetul Kubra) The probability that matter and the universe at large could have the properties it does by chance alone is infinitesimally small (recall the fine-tuning argument) Matter cannot account for its own existence or form since it is a contingent being. It requires a Necessarily Existing Being to explain its existence. (Ayetul Kubra)

Response For material things to be responsible for their beauty, or even their existence, each particle would need to have an all- encompassing knowledge of the properties of all other particles, so that it could act in concert with them to produce orderly, symmetrical, well formed, proportionate, purposive and therefore beautiful things. (Tabiat Risalesi – Treatise on Nature) Matter has no power of its own. Its power is an illusory power. Power must have its source in an essentially Powerful Being, who therefore possesses Absolute Power. There can only be a single possessor of Absolute Power. (Huccetuz Zehra – The Shining Proof)

Counter argument – There is no real beauty Beauty is merely a construct of the material human mind. It is subjective and has no objective reality

Response There is no proper ontology for beauty on materialism. The success of this objection is contingent upon the truth of the assumption that perception is wholly material. Yet it seems absurd to say that perception is literally a particular pattern of electrical impulses or neural connections in the brain. Beauty, perception etc cannot be reduced to matter Even if were true that all beauty is subjective, the existence of at least subjective beauty still requires explanation

Response Is beauty really just subjective, or is it rather the case that not everyone can perceive all kinds and levels of beauty? Isnt the ability to perceive beauty a gradual and ongoing process, that relies on kemalat (maturity)?