Value

Originally posted by David C
[b]It follows then, from this definition of objective value

No, it does not. Although some (some, not all) might feel that way, I personally do not. I also do not believe that your god exists. It is in my nature as a human to subjectively sympathize with the other humans that are here with me. I might feel differently if I was a lion.

How is thi ...[text shortened]...

It does everything of the sort. What do you think the conclusion of Craig's fallacy is?[/b]

No, it does not.

Yes, it does follow from your definition of 'objective value'.

Although some (some, not all) might feel that way, I personally do not.

Now you're talking about your subjective valuation of people. That's why I asked my follow-up question.

You might as well be saying (People really don't have [purple monkey dishwasher]).

No. The definition for 'objective value' that you provided is well-formed and meaningful. Even an evolutionary creationist will accept that it is not a meaningless definition *. Hence, in the context of our conversation, "People really don't have 'objective value'" is not the same as saying what you say above.

Frankly, I think of myself as a partially insane ...

I wouldn't disagree.

... agnostic.

Are you both an atheist and an agnostic, then?

I said:

... just what I think a reasonable atheist evolutionist would say.

to which you responded:

... you have absolutely no clue how I (and I presume others) feel.

implying that you are an atheist evolutionist.

If you are not an atheist, then what was the purpose of that post? Simply to abuse me?

It does everything of the sort. What do you think the conclusion of Craig's fallacy is?

Let's look at Craig's argument (the first part, which deals with value):

(A) If God exists, then our valuation of people ought to come from the fact that they were created by God.
(B) God does not exist.
(C) If God does not exist, then our valuation of people ought to come from Nature.
(D) From (B) and (C), our valuation of people ought to come from Nature.
(E) According to the theory of natural selection, the strongest and fittest individuals in Nature survive and thrive.
(F) From (D) and (E), we ought to value the strongest and fittest individuals who can survive and thrive in Nature.
(G) Men are stronger and fitter than women at surviving and thriving in Nature.
(H) From (F) and (G), we ought to value men over women.
(H'😉 We ought to value men and women equally.

This is the reductio.

Craig's argument is that (A), (C), (E), (G) and (H'😉 are true. Hence (B) must be false, and God exists.

LJ's refutation is that (C) is, in fact, not true for many reasons:

1. Just because something is the case in Nature does not mean it ought to be so in ethics. (The Is-Ought Fallacy)
2. If God does not exist, then we are not constrained to taking our basis of moral valuation from Nature. (I think this is an instance of the Excluded Middle Fallacy)

Further, LJ argues that, even if (C) is true, Craig only makes a case for a belief in the existence of God - not the existence of God Himself (essentially, you need to replace the existence of God in the above argument with belief in the existence of God; i.e. "If we believe that God does not exist" etc.)

Note that LJ's refutation does not actually demonstrate that (B) must be true (i.e. LJ does not actually prove that God does not exist) and hence his refutation does not render the theistic perspective on what constitutes objective value in human beings meaningless.

---
* He will not accept it is the definition of 'objective value', though.

Originally posted by bbarr
That answer would merely confuse a normative question with a descriptive question. The question is not "why do humans think they have value?", but "Are humans valuable, and if so in what does this value consist?".

Now, let's try to get at this question from a theist's point of view:

According to theism, in what does the value of humans consist?

According to Christianity*, there are a few arguments for human value:

1. All of God's creations have value. God created Man. Hence, Man has value.

2. All beings have value to the extent to which they resemble God. Man was created in God's image and likeness (with reference to the human soul and intellect), and has the greatest resemblance to God of all living creatures. Hence, Man has value.

3. Beings have value to the extent to which God loves them and is willing to sacrifice for them. God became man and sacrificed himself for human beings. Hence, Man has value.

4. Beings have value to the extent to which they can share in God's Divine Nature. Man has the potential to share in God's Divine Nature in Heaven. Hence, Man has value.

Taken together, these arguments constitute the Christian viewpoint of human value.

---
* I cannot speak for all theistic viewpoints here.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
According to Christianity*, there are a few arguments for human value:

1. All of God's creations have value. God created Man. Hence, Man has value.

2. All beings have value to the extent to which they resemble God. Man was created in God's image and likeness (with reference to the human soul and intellect), and has the greatest resemblance to ...[text shortened]... e Christian viewpoint of human value.

---
* I cannot speak for all theistic viewpoints here.

1. All of God's creations have value. God created Man. Hence, Man has value.

Well, if you take it as an axiom that all God's creations have value, the atheist can take it as an axiom that all persons have value. If you require an explanation from the atheist on this point, be prepared to offer an explanation for your own axiom.

2. All beings have value to the extent to which they resemble God. Man was created in God's image and likeness (with reference to the human soul and intellect), and has the greatest resemblance to God of all living creatures. Hence, Man has value.

This is predicated on the assumption that God himself has value, or is the source of value. Again, the atheist can take it assume that persons have value, and be in no worse a dialectical position than the theist.

3. Beings have value to the extent to which God loves them and is willing to sacrifice for them. God became man and sacrificed himself for human beings. Hence, Man has value.

The exact same sort of story can be told by the atheist. Man has value because he takes man to have value, and is willing to sacrifice for man, etc. etc.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]1. All of God's creations have value. God created Man. Hence, Man has value.

Well, if you take it as an axiom that all God's creations have value, the atheist can take it as an axiom that all persons have value. If you require an explanation from the atheist on this point, be prepared to offer an explanation for your own axiom.

2. All bein ...[text shortened]... Man has value because he takes man to have value, and is willing to sacrifice for man, etc. etc.

[/b]Well, if you take it as an axiom that all God's creations have value, the atheist can take it as an axiom that all persons have value. If you require an explanation from the atheist on this point, be prepared to offer an explanation for your own axiom.

A creation has value simply by virtue of what it is - a creation. The value of any creation (divine or human - like a painting, a building or a sculpture) is based on three parameters:

1. The complexity / artistry of the design
2. The effort involved in the creation of the design
3. The worth, reputation or majesty of the creator

What's the atheist's explanation?

This is predicated on the assumption that God himself has value, or is the source of value. Again, the atheist can take it assume that persons have value, and be in no worse a dialectical position than the theist.

Pick any parameter - intelligence, goodness, ability, age, wisdom, uniqueness - by which we would normally value any life; God would (by definition) possess the perfection of that attribute and hence be the being of highest possible value.

Man has value because he takes man to have value, and is willing to sacrifice for man, etc. etc.

It then follows that the man who is not loved by other men, for whom no one is willing to sacrifice anything, does not have value.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Well, if you take it as an axiom that all God's creations have value, the atheist can take it as an axiom that all persons have value. If you require an explanation from the atheist on this point, be prepared to offer an explanation for your own axiom.

A creation has value simply by virtue of what it is - a creation. The value of any c ...[text shortened]... s not loved by other men, for whom no one is willing to sacrifice anything, does not have value.[/b]

(1) Although you assert that creations have value simply by virtue of being creations, I see no reason to take your word on this matter. It is certainly possible that all creations are objectively without value. If you think that creations have objective value by their very nature, then the atheist who claims that persons have value by their very nature will be in a symmetrical dialectical position. Of course, if you think that the value of creations is a subjective matter (as your criteria suggest, especially criteria 2 and 3) then it is hard to see how this trivial point can be extended to cover questions of the value of humans. If humans are only valuable because, say, God values them, then their value is still subjective. Whatever the case, the atheist can claim that humans are valuable because the atheist himself values them. Again, the atheist and theist are in symmetrical dialectical positions.

(2) The atheist can endorse any of the parameters you mention. If these parameters are criterial of the good life, then the atheist can use them to explain the value of human lives.

(3) It would follow from the theistic view that if God didn't value some particular life, then that life would be without value. This seems equally absurd, especially if the life God doesn't value is valued by the one whose life it is. Further, even if God values all lives by necessity, this would still be an instance of the value of human lives being a subjective matter. Humans lives, on this view, wouldn't be objectively valuable, but valuable only in as much as they are in fact valued by some other agent.

The atheist could respond that any man who valued his own life would thereby imbue his life with value. The life of a man who is valued by nobody, himself included, would be without value on this view. I'm not sure why there is a problem with this implication. It certainly doesn't follow from a life's being without value that it would be morally permissible for anybody to take that life, unless one is some peculiar sort of act utilitarian. Since act utlitarianism is false, there is no problem here.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What is it that gives a human being value?

I quote Jerry Solomon:

"A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation he had with a good friend we will call Joe. Joe is a doctor. He is not a Christian. This is how the conversation went: "Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people sinc ...[text shortened]... answer it. His worldview had taken a blow."

How does your worldview explain this question?

Well I am not a doctor but I play one on TV and since this question has my name in it, that is easy to answer:

"Joe, you're an excellent doctor. You care deeply about your patients. Why do you care so much for people since you believe we have evolved by chance? What gives us value?"

Just because I do believe we evolved by chance does not mean I don't believe in a higher power that perhaps loves and cares for us but even if I didn't believe that, I feel good helping others. I have a question: Why do you feel that caring for patients has to automatically lead one into being a Christian? Why can't an Atheist care for people?

Originally posted by bbarr
(1) Although you assert that creations have value simply by virtue of being creations, I see no reason to take your word on this matter. It is certainly possible that all creations are objectively without value. If you think that creations have objective value by their very nature, then the atheist who claims that persons have value by their very nature wil ...[text shortened]... peculiar sort of act utilitarian. Since act utlitarianism is false, there is no problem here.

Before we continue on this philosophical merry-go-round, could you share what operational definitions you are using for the following terms:

- objective
- subjective
- value

Also, it seems to me that your atheist's answer (in (1)) to the question "Why do you value human life" is "I simply do". He has no reason for valuing human life.

I'll get back to your points once you've elaborated on those terms.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Before we continue on this philosophical merry-go-round, could you share what operational definitions you are using for the following terms:

- objective
- subjective
- value

Also, it seems to me that your atheist's answer (in (1)) to the question "Why do you value human life" is "I simply do". He has no reason for valuing human life.

I'll get back to your points once you've elaborated on those terms.

You're the one expressing skepticism here, you define your terms! I'm not the one claiming that theists are committed to a worldview wherein the value of human life is inexplicable. If you or the god-mongers among us want us atheists to take your concerns seriously, then please give us an argument; a reason for thinking that atheism can't make sense of the value of human life. Until you do that, I'll just spit your axioms back at you, with a suitable atheistic translation.

Originally posted by bbarr
That answer would merely confuse a normative question with a descriptive question. The question is not "why do humans think they have value?", but "Are humans valuable, and if so in what does this value consist?".

Now, let's try to get at this question from a theist's point of view:

According to theism, in what does the value of humans consist?

If I remember Biology, I think it was about 96 cents worth of minerals/elements. But that was a long time ago. Now with inflation and all......

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I'm doing the same, although our creator in my interpretation is the Sun.

Tell me, who created the sun? Or do you think it is eternal?[/b]

Tell me, who created God? Or do you think He is eternal? O wait, you do. Nobody created Him either. He was just there. Sorry, forgot.

All this bickering over nothing.

For those who believe in God, the value is obvious. God loves his children, etc

Most atheists would agree that humans have a sense of empathy, so let empathy as well as the rights afforded by the law be the standard of value.

Either way, a human life has value.

Peace.

Originally posted by lioyank
Tell me, who created God? Or do you think He is eternal? O wait, you do. Nobody created Him either. He was just there. Sorry, forgot.

She, not he.

You've forgotten more than you recall. 😕

Originally posted by The Chess Express
All this bickering over nothing.

For those who believe in God, the value is obvious. God loves his children, etc

Most atheists would agree that humans have a sense of empathy, so let empathy as well as the rights afforded by the law be the standard of value.

Either way, a human life has value.

Peace.

For those who believe in the christian god, the value for many human lives runs out on judgment day, when the majority of them are deemed worthless and subjected to eternal torment. I don't hear any empathy for them. Especially considering that eternity is like, a waaaaay longer period for suffering than anything here on earth.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
For those who believe in the christian god, the value for many human lives runs out on judgment day, when the majority of them are deemed worthless and subjected to eternal torment. I don't hear any empathy for them. Especially considering that eternity is like, a waaaaay longer period for suffering than anything here on earth.

John 3:16,17,18 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
For those who believe in the christian god, the value for many human lives runs out on judgment day, when the majority of them are deemed worthless and subjected to eternal torment. I don't hear any empathy for them. Especially considering that eternity is like, a waaaaay longer period for suffering than anything here on earth.

Sigh. You seem to have some misconceptions on the Christian concepts of hell, so I'll c&p from a previous post:

My 2 cents on hell.

There is no doctrine I would rather remove from my Christianity than the doctrine of hell. I know I've alluded many times to free will and I do so here again.

If the acceptance and happiness of a creature (heaven) lay in self-surrender, then no one can make that surrender except himself.

A man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. I think that an evil man's perdition is not a sentence imposed on him, but the mere fact of being what he is. I think the characteristic of a lost soul is the rejection of everything that is not him/herself. Such a person has turned everything around them into an appendage of the self. A true egoist. Their selfishness has quenched them to a rudimentary contact with the world outside themselves. Death removes this last contact. There this soul has his/her wish; to lie wholly immersed in itself and to make the best of what it finds there. What it finds there is Hell.

When it comes to "eternal torture", I don't think we should to easily be swept along by frightful images suggested in medieval art and some parts of scripture for that matter. Christ speaks of Hell under three symbols: first, that of punishment (Matt 25:46), second that of destruction (Matt 10:28) and thirdly that of exclusion or banishment "into outer darkness". The prevalent image of fire is significant because it combines the ideas of torment and destruction. I have no doubt these expressions are meant to convey something unspeakably horrible, but it is not necessary to concentrate on the images of torture to the exclusion of those suggesting destruction and banishment.

Destruction, we could assume to mean the unmaking, or the cessation of the soul. It is our experience though, that the destruction of one thing means the emergence of another. Burn a log, and you have gasses, heat and ash.

In the parable in Matt 25:34,41 the saved go to a place prepared for them, while the damned go to a place never prepared for men at all. I contend that to enter heaven, is to become more human than you ever succeeded on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity. What is cast (or casts itself)into hell, is not a man: it is the "remains". By becoming the complete human, I mean to have our passions obedient to our will, and our will offered to God. The other extreme is our passions utterly uncontrollable by the will, and the will totally centered on itself: hell.

I notice Christ, while stressing the terror of hell, usually emphasizes the idea not of duration, but of finality. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story, not the beginning of a new story. Whether this eternal fixity implies eternal duration, or duration at all, I cannot say.

We know much more about heaven than hell, because heaven is the home of humanity, and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life. Hell is in no sense a parallel to heaven. It is the darkness outside, the outer rim where beings fade into nonentity.

I willingly believe that the doors of hell are locked from the inside, where those lost souls enjoy the freedom without God they have demanded.