The Basis of Human Worth
How do you derive human worth from a universe devoid of God?
Someone please answer this, since it appears to me that without God, human life is greatly devalued. Consider the following:
- If life happened with no purpose in mind, humans are intrinsically no more important than other animals.
- We may value an organism based on how much it can accomplish, which is dependent on how intelligent it is.
- This is the only basis for valuing a human life over the life of another species- the human’s higher intelligence.
- However, how do we value those humans who do not have the same level of intelligence? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, is there any reason to suggest that they are of equal value?
- Furthermore, what of those people with genetic diseases? According to the evolutionary viewpoint, are they preventing humanity from reaching its potential?
- From a purely naturalistic standpoint, what’s to stop someone from being as cruel as nature herself? Why does the survival of the fittest not apply to humans?
As you can see, a purely evolutionary viewpoint devoid of God leads straight into eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion. That is not to say that atheists cannot be good people, but it is to say that their goodness does not come from their atheism – it has some other origin. My guess would be Christian tradition.
People say that the Golden Rule is universal and not Christian in origin. But they miss the point- Christians were the first to have reason to define “your neighbor” to mean everyone, especially those you hate.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28
1NezumiPickle
wrote on 14 January 2009 at 14:45
Right, I figured out this whole registering thing.
This is Francesca, by the way.
Alright, so going off the discussion on Facebook: I’m having a hard time figuring out how to approach this…
So what you’re saying is that, assuming there’s a God, he created all people so that they are of equal value to him, and with the idea that, because he values us equally, we should value each other equally. Is that right?
Then, of course, removing God from the equation poses a difficult problem. Without a convenient all-powerful, objective value-er, what tells us that humans are equal? Nothing. Because humans aren’t all of equal value to each other, nor should they be.
Actually, I think this addresses the whole issue of human equality really well: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/egalitarianism.html
I’ve got a headache and can’t absorb all of that article on Rand & evolution right now, but I’ll try responding. I don’t see how the idea of evolution contradicts the notion that men are intrinsically different from animals. I think we evolved from animals, which are basically slaves to instinct and incapable of rational thought, to men, who, according to Rand, do not possess instincts (in the sense of automatic survival knowledge) but are capable of rational thought.
Anyway, I think I’m going to take a nap. x_x But I’ll check back later, heh.
2NezumiPickle
wrote on 14 January 2009 at 14:51
OH: but as for things like abortion and euthanasia, I wouldn’t say that either is necessarily wrong. In fact, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with abortion in the fetus’s very early stages. I’m talking, before it has nerves, which, according to this website http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112 is about a week after you can expect to get a positive on a pregnancy test? Once it can feel, though, then killing it would be akin to killing an animal (which I’m pretty sure we have laws against). And then, of course, by the time it’s capable of surviving outside of the womb, there’s no way in hell abortion should be legal.
3NezumiPickle
wrote on 14 January 2009 at 22:55
LOL MARQUIS DE SADE, I totally missed that. I have no idea what his point is- during the first half of that quote, I thought he meant that there’s no dignity involved in ignoring something as trivial as a “physiological itch,” but that can’t be right. Aw, crap, and then I thought I had it there for a moment, but now I’m baffled again.
But as far as the “For example, how can man have a qualitatively different value from animals if is every bit a part of nature as animals?” bit goes, that was more or less what I was referring to earlier. Yeah, we’re part of nature, and we probably were once just animal, but something occurred during our evolution that gave us the power of higher thought processes which is what we use to differentiate ourselves from (other) animals.
Plus the fact that we’ve basically conquered the animal kingdom is a point in our favor.
(OK, that smacks of “might makes right.” But the fact that no species has put up any significant defense suggests that we’re way out of their league.)
Now, going out on a limb and rambling a bit: I suppose if we were, say, mice, we could consider ourselves to be creatures of intrinsic value (to ourselves) because of our…uh…mice-like qualities…? (Except, of course, that if we were mice, we couldn’t really consider at all.) But I guess valuing oneself and one’s species is all a part of the natural desire to survive? Hrrrrrm.
And no, I haven’t read anything by Goodkind yet…! I keep forgetting. I’ll go add that to my list of authors to look out for…
4Anonymous
wrote on 28 January 2009 at 17:18
Katelyn,
Do you think the declining enrollment and subsequent closure of Loretto High School this June is in any way related to the Catholic community’s response to how you and your family were treated by the administration of the school?
I find the reasons for Loretto’s closure suspect, at the least. As a St. Francis parent, I can tell you that enrollment there is up, that parents drive from many counties, etc. In fact, this seems to be the case for Jesuit and Christian Brothers high schools also.
I think there is more to this story that we are being told. You can read all about it at: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1578506.html
5Jim Baxter
wrote on 28 March 2009 at 7:01
Consider:
The missing element in every human ’solution’
is an accurate definition of the creature.
The way we define ‘human’ determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Many
problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe.
The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human
reason cannot fully function in such a void; thus, the
intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it
perceives and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure.
However, as with all measuring systems, a standard
must be greater than the value measured. Based on
preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal
nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appe-
tites, desires, feelings, emotions, – and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament,
cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist
lacks a predictive capability. Thus, his man-made criteria
rises no higher than eyebrows – and too often, no higher
than pubic hair! Without instinct or transcendent criteria,
humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight and
vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, collectivism, averages, and re-
gression – and worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behav-
ior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcend-
ent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philo-
sophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and
thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival
equipment for today and the future. Only the Creator,
who made us in His own image, is qualified to define
us accurately.
Human is earth’s Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature’s God a creature of Choice – and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe. selah
That human institution which is structured on the
principle, “…all men are endowed by their Creator with
…Liberty…,” is a system with its roots in the natural
Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are
necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and
nature’s God. Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under Western Civilization and the American
way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the
present generation and the “multitudes in the valley of
decision.”
Let us proclaim it. Behold!
2009 AD: The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 Psalm 25:12 KJV
“NO ONE IS SMARTER THAN THEIR CRITERIA.” jfb
“Got Criteria?” See Psalm 119:1-176
+ + +