Seemingly that thought never occurred to anyone who commented so far. Quite possibly it did, however, to the cartoonist. Perhaps that’s what the cartoon’s “purpose” was: to make us think about purpose!

I am in agreement by the bucketful
about theology. When I was in college, we read all those popular new theologians
who worked SOOO hard to avoid the issue of Christ’s divinity. I should have gone into it–I’d never have to be wrong in the classroom.

Now to the issue: the tap handle just might be a finger unto the world. But, yes, of course, it is also a member of the phallic set. In which case I supppose the wide, copious, invitiing, dark glass of stout (never cold!) is yonic.

You need to see the very first Jesus and Mo publication. It explains how it isn’t Mo being depicted but a body double.

These are all personal opinion, or *potential* answers. I’m not saying here that I have the answers. So, in Joe’s order:

We may be here, as a recent study suggested, as “energy conduits”. Redistributing energy from the Sun, with the intent to bring energy transfer to equilibrium. We could simply be the agents of entropy.

Many species use visual attractants like birds, flowers, etc. Perhaps if beauty can be explained as the human response to these same traits in “lower” animals, then it’s easy to explain the purpose of beauty in evolutionary terms.

Compassion results in a higher level of genetic diversity, since each act of compassion increases the chances of an individual’s survival. Diversity in the gene pool allows greater adaptability to adverse conditions (when considers from the perspective of the human race as a super-organism) and contributes to the continuing success of the species.

I find it very hard to believe that we won’t be able to explain everything in our observable universe, given enough time, in natural terms.

On the question of aesthetics – I need some clarification. Lets remove/reduce out of aesthetics the following: 1- brain pleasure centers as evolved for survival (probably the largest component) – and I include in here “higher pleasures” like seeing an offspring succeed, anti-depression mechanisms so that the organism does not commit suicide, etc., 2- composition of arbitrary value systems (e.g. it is “good” to be compassionate to the poor) – IOW making up rules for the game, based on some non-empirical/ideological motive that tickles the intellectual center of the mind.

Question is: If you factor out of aesthetics the pleasue center and essentially arbitrary value system composition activity — what is left of aesthetics? Anything left there?

If there is nothing left, then why do we have aesthetics?

Thanks for each and all answers.

Great point!

But then again, they’re not theological questions. They are aesthetic questions. That’s the underlying crime of theology – treating aesthetic questions as if they were empirical questions, and thereby making it impossible to actually answer them. That’s what leads to the physical destruction from religion — thinking that poetry is a yes/no question.