God's Existence, Science and Faith, Suffering and Evil, Jesus' Resurrection, and Book Reviews

Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?

Introduction

Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one's politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.

Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.

Intrinsic Value

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others' value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

Instrumental Value

On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the "goodness" of even the most egregious behaviors if a "greater" goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgement is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to "might makes right:" whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong." Political reform has not justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

Origins Of The Image of God

If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one's view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life's history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a "cultural big bang":


These pieces of evidence include:

  1. Advanced cognitive ability
  2. The capacity for symbolic thought
  3. A powerful imagination
  4. Superior craftsmanship
  5. Inventiveness and superior adaptability
  6. A driving desire for artistic and musical expression


He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book "Who Was Adam." In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.

Conclusion

It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).


For more on the topic of the evidence for the Image of God and its implications, see these posts and books:

Find other posts related to:

, , , , , , , ,

4 Questions to Ask Before You Hit SEND

"My dearly loved brothers, understand this: Everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for man’s anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness."

- James 1:19-20 (HCSB)

Introduction

As someone who loves to engage people in deep worldview conversations and steer unbelievers towards the truth of Christianity, my ability to communicate is vital. Whether I am conversing in person or commenting on a post on social media, it is important that the words I speak or write glorify God and work towards the end of bringing more people to the Truth. In 2018 I read and reviewed an important book that helps the reader to accomplish this goal. Communication expert Dr. Emerson Eggerichs (known for Love and Respect) published his book on general communication, called "Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache" to challenge his audience to exercise wisdom and discernment before "hitting send" on their communications to others- whether verbal or written. Because of the insight offered throughout the book, it was included in my Top 5 Recommended Books for Productive Conversations. Eggerichs encourages people to ask four questions of what they are preparing to say or write to ensure that the words will accomplish the goal of the speaker or writer. Today, I am going to highlight those four questions and their importance for the Christian apologist. 


Is It True?

Because the Christian worldview is true and people's eternal destinies depend upon their recognition of this truth, ensuring that as we defend the truth of Christianity we also speak truthfully about other matters is of utmost importance. It is natural for us to doubt someone's truthfulness when they speak something false. I have written many times about the importance of apologists' studying and defending non-essential doctrines, and in those posts, I emphasize this very concern of unbelievers.

For instance, many people have issues with origins and the Bible, and while not all aspects of origins are essential issues, it is important that the apologist be able to speak truthfully on the origins issue. If we speak falsely and the person knows that we are speaking falsely (whether we mean to or not), then we give them a good reason to doubt our trustworthiness when it comes to the more important matter of the Resurrection of Jesus.

Is It Kind?

One of the big issues that I see with Christians, especially on social media and when discussing hot-button issues such as origins, is the unkind attitude with which the Gospel is presented. While we defend the truth, we cannot defend it with contempt for the person we are presenting it to. They are created in the Image of God and are worthy of our love, respect, and kindness no matter what they have done or how frustrated they make us. If we truly wish for them to repent from their sins, accept Christ's sacrifice, and live with us for eternity, would we not want to present the truth in the most kind and loving way so as to encourage them to accept the truth we speak?

Unlike what many think about speaking kindly, it does not require that we speak untruthfully. "True" describes the content; "kind" describes the attitude with which content is presented. If we present true content unkindly, we do damage to the truth by making it appear repulsive.

Is It Necessary?

The necessity of what we speak has two sides. The first is that we must speak what is necessary, and the second is that we must refrain from speaking what is unnecessary. Many Christians refrain from speaking what is necessary because they are fearful that they are not equipped to defend what they believe. They know that the time is right and that it is necessary to say something. They want to defend the truth of the Resurrection and the Christian worldview, and they know that they need to. Doing so is necessary in many of our conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. This is why studying the defense of the Christian worldview (asking the question "Is It True"- apologetics) is important for all Christians.

The second side is that we also tend to speak unnecessarily. For instance (I have to really watch out for this one), if an unbeliever is not struggling with science/faith issues, then bringing up the whole creation/evolution debate is unnecessary and may actually introduce a stumbling block for the unbeliever. No Christian ever wants to introduce more reasons for an unbeliever to reject (or even delay accepting) Christ. We need to listen carefully to the unbeliever's concerns and address those with truth and kindness and do our best to not bring more unnecessary matters into the decision-making process. This is not to say that these issues are not important; they are; but that particular conversation may not be the time to discuss them with a particular person. If the person brings up a non-essential matter, then it is now necessary to address, and we need to be prepared to do so or to refer them to a resource that can address it (all the while reminding them that it is not an essential issue and not a reason to reject Christ).

Is It Clear?

While everything that we speak can be true, kind, and necessary, we may still fail in our communication by not communicating it clearly. Many Christian apologists are familiar with the work of Greg Koukl. In his book "Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions" he encourages Christians to engage in conversations by asking questions. When we ask ourselves "Is It Clear?" we are essentially taking Koukl's questions and asking them of ourselves: "What do I mean by that?" and "How did I come to that conclusion?" When we answer these questions for ourselves, we are more likely to be able to clearly communicate to others.

We must also not resist if others ask the "Columbo" questions of us. If the questions are asked, it is because we are not speaking clearly enough for a good understanding. In this situation, it should not frustrate us to have to clarify, it should excite us that the person values what we say enough to ask for clarification. When we are given the opportunity to clarify, we are given the opportunity to get the unbeliever intellectually (and many times, emotionally and spiritually) closer to accepting Christ.

Conclusion

As evangelists (Matthew 28:19) and defenders (1 Peter 3:15) of Christianity, it is vital to our purpose to be able and willing to communicate the Gospel in the most effective way possible. And in today's culture, stopping to think carefully about what we say or write is not necessarily encouraged. However, that is what is necessary to be successful ambassadors for Christ. I encourage you to pick up a copy of "Before You Hit Send" and make the decision to consciously exercise the advice provided within it pages, for the benefit of Christ's Kingdom.


Find other posts related to:

, , , , , , , , , ,

Should Public Schools Promote "In God We Trust"?

Introduction

"In God We Trust" has increasingly become a debated motto for Americans as the country becomes more secularized. However, in recent days, the State of South Dakota passed a law stating that all public schools must prominently display that motto on their campuses. Many will challenge the constitutionality and wisdom of such a law while others will debate the practicality of it (such as money to fund the creation of the displays). Neither of those is the focus of this post, though. Today, I want to discuss the reasonableness of an educational institution recognizing God's existence and its dependence on Him.

Many things that the educational system depends upon actually requires God to find its roots in reality. It is quite common for the distinction between knowing something and justifying something to be confused. We can know that something is true without being able to justify its being true. In philosophy, this is known as the distinction between ontology (what is true) and epistemology (how we know what is true). People can know things to be true, and even act properly according to that knowledge, yet not hold a worldview that can justify its being true (this will be explained more, in the section on morality below). Many of the things that are foundational to education (e.g. knowledge, progress, intrinsic human value, diversity, design, history, and science) are often known yet cannot be justified by those who know them to be true. Of those many things, knowledge is the most foundational.

Knowledge, The Education System, and God

Knowledge is at the foundation of the entire education system. If we cannot find some way to ground our claims of knowledge to reality, we are merely communicating opinions. Because of this, if knowledge of reality is not even possible, then all knowledge disciplines (the subjects taught in school), are not rightly called "knowledge" but rather "opinion" disciplines. The connection of knowledge to God is required in two ways: first, the justification of what is true must be something that is chiefly concerned with what is true. Second, the agents who are attempting to discover what is true must possess faculties that are concerned with chiefly with what is true. 

We know from evolutionary biology that organisms and all their components are only "concerned" with survival (I place quotes around "concerned" because naturalistic evolution is neither forward-thinking nor purpose-driven). This means that our brains are not programmed by nature to believe what is true but rather to believe what will keep us alive. In a world that is "red in tooth and claw" it is better to be safe than sorry, so our brains register (believe) many false positives about dangers, for instance. This is just one example of "useful fictions" that our brains must believe, according to naturalistic evolution. Because they are chiefly concerned with believing what will keep us safe even if it is false, our brains are not reliable tools for apprehending truth. 

However, if our brains are created by a God who is concerned with our ability to believe what is true, then He would have created our brains (and sense organs, as well) with the ability to not only distinguish between what is true and what is safe, but it will also prefer the former (free will does have an effect on this, though). So, from the very foundation of the educational system, for it to even be called such, God is required. On this ground, alone, it is reasonable that an education system would recognize God's existence and its dependence upon Him for its very purpose in society (to educate).

Without proper justification, there is no objective standard by which to judge what is true or false about not just knowledge, but the things that we will continue to discuss in this post, and what is taught by the system about these things comes at the whim of whoever is currently controlling the system. The education system ultimately reduces to "might makes right," an exercise in epistemology anarchy. If the education system were to affirm any worldview that cannot justify knowledge, it is admitting its uselessness for imparting knowledge to the next generation and admitting that its only purpose is to propagandize our children into blindly believing that their purpose in life is to serve an elite class of people with money and power. 

For more on the necessity of God to justify knowledge, I highly recommend that you read the book "Where The Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism" by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Also, see this short video explaining his argument:


Conclusion

It is only if God exists that what we believe can be justified. Without God, all claims to knowledge are merely opinions and do not actually reflect reality. If they do not actually reflect reality, then the "education" system is not imparting knowledge of what is true but rather indoctrinating opinions that are preferred by a few people in power. Since the public school system claims to impart knowledge of the world in which we live, it is only reasonable that our schools recognize the foundation and justification of knowledge: God. Students and parents are free to disagree; however, if they wish to do so, they need to defend an alternative justification.

For more on this topic and to see how several other foundations to the education system are justified only by God's existence, see the links throughout this post and these additional ones:



Find other posts related to:

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)