Value of the Person Intrinsic

alex73

OK, Open topic to Christians here.


Does the person have an Intrinsic value? Independent from all religious views?

PDN

Could you clarify the question?

I believe people have an intrinsic value because they are created in the image of God. That is, of course, a religious view - but you address your question to Christians, so of course you're going to get religious views.

Are you wanting us as Christians to imagine we're not Christians and try to imagine what we would think if we didn't have religious views?

alex73

PDN wrote: »

Could you clarify the question?

I believe people have an intrinsic value because they are created in the image of God. That is, of course, a religious view - but you address your question to Christians, so of course you're going to get religious views.

Are you wanting us as Christians to imagine we're not Christians and try to imagine what we would think if we didn't have religious views?

I agree with the above... But if I were to be a atheist. what would drive me to respect the intrinsic value of the person. There are some camps who believe that respect for the other, love thy neighbour as yourself, is a concept that goes hand in hand with religion.. Take religion out then for some its every man for himself.


I am and you are human beings with intrinsic right to exist. We exist as independent beings irrespective of all religious views.

Does everyone believe in this intrinsic value?

If you don't. Why not?

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

I agree with the above... But if I were to be a atheist. what would drive me to respect the intrinsic value of the person. There are some camps who believe that respect for the other, love thy neighbour as yourself, is a concept that goes hand in hand with religion.. Take religion out then for some its every man for himself.


I am and you are human beings with intrinsic right to exist. We exist as independent beings irrespective of all religious views.

Does everyone believe in this intrinsic value?

If you don't. Why not?

I guess most religions and ideologies believe in the intrinsic value of man. Each will have its own reason. Christianity has God's word on the matter - man is sacred because God made him in His image.

The atheist usually invents a justification for holding the belief that man has intrinsic value, for few (that I know of) are willing to face the logic of their atheism and declare all things to be of equally without intrinsic value or moral meaning.

Humanism and Marxism insist that man as an individual or collectively has intrinsic value. But they only hold that to suit their goals, not from any logic of atheism. No, there are few honest atheists.

************************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

AhSureTisGrand

wolfsbane wrote: »

Humanism and Marxism insist that man as an individual or collectively has intrinsic value. But they only hold that to suit their goals, not from any logic of atheism. No, there are few honest atheists

So if any of your views do not come from some logic of Christianity, you are being dishonest?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Could you clarify the question?

I believe people have an intrinsic value because they are created in the image of God. That is, of course, a religious view - but you address your question to Christians, so of course you're going to get religious views.

Are you wanting us as Christians to imagine we're not Christians and try to imagine what we would think if we didn't have religious views?

I think he is asking do you see any reason to value human life that are independent to your Christian beliefs, ie beliefs that would still exist if you didn't believe in the existence of God.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I guess most religions and ideologies believe in the intrinsic value of man. Each will have its own reason. Christianity has God's word on the matter - man is sacred because God made him in His image.

The atheist usually invents a justification for holding the belief that man has intrinsic value, for few (that I know of) are willing to face the logic of their atheism and declare all things to be of equally without intrinsic value or moral meaning.

Humanism and Marxism insist that man as an individual or collectively has intrinsic value. But they only hold that to suit their goals, not from any logic of atheism. No, there are few honest atheists.

Most atheists I've encountered consider humans valuable because they consider themselves and their friends/family valuable and thus, through empathy and rationality, extend this notion beyond themselves and the family/friend circle, in a sense of co-operation and mutual respect. Or to put it more simply, life is valuable because we value it.

You might disagree with this logic, but it is a big disingenuous to suggest it doesn't exist. I also find most Christians agree with such a notion, as demonstrated by the classic "If God didn't exist would you just kill everyone you didn't like" thought experiment (the answers is typically no, they wouldn't even if they aren't entirely sure why)

Fanny Cradock

alex73 wrote: »

OK, Open topic to Christians here.


Does the person have an Intrinsic value? Independent from all religious views?

It depends who you ask and at what moment in history.

alex73

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It depends who you ask and at what moment in history.

Today. Should we give the person a universal intrinsic value?

Fanny Cradock

Without something beyond ourselves - specifically God - I don't see how it is possible. We might enshrine human worth in law - for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but what is that but convention? Hume might well have been wrong on a number of issues, but when he said that you can't get an ought from an is he was bang on the mark.

alex73

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Without something beyond ourselves - specifically God - I don't see how it is possible. We might enshrine human worth in law - for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but what is that but convention? Hume might well have been wrong on a number of issues, but when he said that you can't get an ought from an is he was bang on the mark.

That's just the thing. There seems to be a gradual erosion of intrinsic value of the person. I would say its a natural universal value that we are born with. Like fight or flight.

Yet today to talk about this parks me with religious camp of views.

I while back I remember some statistic the americans spend something like 41 billion on pet food, in the Uk is about 2 billion pounds.

While at the very same time there are still children going hungry any dying. We place more value on a pets than on human life.

Or in the UK a while back in the news they arrested a mother because she had killed her premature baby at home.. While she could easily have had a late term abortion.. Why arrest her? Why was there a value in her baby that warranted action.. but not if she had abortion.

We have all seen how a different times in history certain lives where seen to have no value,

Is it not time we all accept the objective instrinsicallity of the Person.


Today it seems like human rights means we are equal, but reality is, some people are more equal than others.

wolfsbane

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

So if any of your views do not come from some logic of Christianity, you are being dishonest?

Not at all. You are being dishonest if you do not follow your own logic. If you are an atheist but believe in Christian morality, you are being dishonest. Or Hindu morality. In fact, any morality.

You might properly decide to follow any of these, adopt them for convenience - but you cannot honestly believe any morality is truer than another.

********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Most atheists I've encountered consider humans valuable because they consider themselves and their friends/family valuable and thus, through empathy and rationality, extend this notion beyond themselves and the family/friend circle, in a sense of co-operation and mutual respect. Or to put it more simply, life is valuable because we value it.

But they have no logical reason to consider themselves valuable. The only 'reason' they have for doing so is that it copes with their fear of the consequences of doing otherwise. They instinctively fear death, and to be a meaningless intelligence offers so many easy roads both to self-inflicted extinction and societal disorder leading to extinction. Better to have feelings of self-worth and communal support, in order to protect life.

But rational beings should be able to overcome these evolutionary instincts, and face the truth. Life is without objective meaning, and each one is free to cope with that as seems best to him/her. That might mean adopting a love-your-neighbour morality so that pleasant things happen to you. It might mean adopting a race supremacy morality, to dominate others and live in luxury. It might mean making your quietus with a bare bodkin. Without God, anything is OK.

You might disagree with this logic, but it is a big disingenuous to suggest it doesn't exist.

The logic of coping is fair enough - but not pretending the morality used is other than artificial, invented for the purpose. That is, telling oneself that man is actually valuable, rather than just living as if he was.

I also find most Christians agree with such a notion, as demonstrated by the classic "If God didn't exist would you just kill everyone you didn't like" thought experiment (the answers is typically no, they wouldn't even if they aren't entirely sure why)

The honesty test applies to us all. Christians in your scenario must admit their choice not to kill is based purely on personal choice, not on any intrinsic value in the person.

*******************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

AhSureTisGrand

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not at all. You are being dishonest if you do not follow your own logic. If you are an atheist but believe in Christian morality, you are being dishonest. Or Hindu morality. In fact, any morality.

Unless Christians have a patent on their moral code, I'm not following.

Surely they must be following their own logic if they do not follow the Christian derived-from-God logic

goose2005

alex73 wrote: »

That's just the thing. There seems to be a gradual erosion of intrinsic value of the person. I would say its a natural universal value that we are born with. Like fight or flight.

False, the person is considered far more valuable. The last 200 years are the only in history to forbid slavery.

I while back I remember some statistic the americans spend something like 41 billion on pet food, in the Uk is about 2 billion pounds.

While at the very same time there are still children going hungry any dying. We place more value on a pets than on human life.

Most pet food is made from byproducts of human food production and is barely fit for human consumption.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

But they have no logical reason to consider themselves valuable. The only 'reason' they have for doing so is that it copes with their fear of the consequences of doing otherwise. They instinctively fear death, and to be a meaningless intelligence offers so many easy roads both to self-inflicted extinction and societal disorder leading to extinction. Better to have feelings of self-worth and communal support, in order to protect life.

But rational beings should be able to overcome these evolutionary instincts, and face the truth. Life is without objective meaning, and each one is free to cope with that as seems best to him/her. That might mean adopting a love-your-neighbour morality so that pleasant things happen to you. It might mean adopting a race supremacy morality, to dominate others and live in luxury. It might mean making your quietus with a bare bodkin. Without God, anything is OK.

Perhaps, perhaps. But just because it's an unpleasant idea does not make it a false one.

Fanny Cradock

goose2005 wrote: »

False, the person is considered far more valuable. The last 200 years are the only in history to forbid slavery.

And yet it is estimated by some reports that there are 27 million people held in some form of slavery or debt bondage.

wolfsbane

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Unless Christians have a patent on their moral code, I'm not following.

Surely they must be following their own logic if they do not follow the Christian derived-from-God logic

The logic of the atheist demands all things to be of equal value/moral significance, since material is all there is. We are no different from stardust, just differently organised. We are not special creations of God, made in His image.

We may feel uncomfortable with that knowledge and wish to pretend we are of a higher significance - but it is only pretence. Intellectual dishonesty.

***********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

wolfsbane

goose2005 said:

Perhaps, perhaps. But just because it's an unpleasant idea does not make it a false one.

Indeed. But I never said it did. I just offered it as the reason many atheists prefer morality above reason.

**********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

AhSureTisGrand

wolfsbane wrote: »

since material is all there is.

This is materialism. Materialism and atheism are not interchangeable, nor does materialism automatically follow from atheism. Please do not make accusations of dishonesty when your own argument is based on a strawman

wolfsbane

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

This is materialism. Materialism and atheism are not interchangeable, nor does materialism automatically follow from atheism. Please do not make accusations of dishonesty when your own argument is based on a strawman

Really? An atheist can believe in a supernatural dimension?

But I thought it was the unscientific nature of that that led to their assurance that God or gods do not exist?

Can you give refs. to non-materialist atheism?

***********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

strobe

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can you give refs. to non-materialist atheism?

Many Buddhists are atheists whilst believing in Devas and the immaterial dimensions some of them exist in. There are atheists that believe in ghosts whilst not believing in a deity.

More here.

Fanny Cradock

I wonder if Jainism could be included in this?

strobe

All the 'Hinduistic' (I think I just coined that {highly inaccurate} term...) tend to be much more lax with how the individual chooses to interpret the concept of 'God(s)' than the Abrahamic religions. So you tend to find traditions in all of them where an adherent can believe in all the supernatural trappings that tend to go along with theism while still technically capable of being classed as a-theists.

I'd imagine this is common enough amongst a lot of polytheistic religions as it is hard to incorporate the idea of omnipotence if there is more than one god (obviously). So once you no longer have omnipotence I would imagine it is a lot easier for Gods to become gods over time. This is one of the main strengths of monotheism in preserving in my opinion.

Then again it does remove the possibility that someone would cease being a monotheist but remain in the religion in some way so it could also prove to be a negative in terms of apostasy (and particularly ehh anti-postacy?).

I'm sure someone would have a much more informed opinion on this than me. Outside of Buddhism any information of mine on the other 'Indiany' religions comes from wikipedia.

(sorry I know this is off topic. I don't really understand the original topic of the thread though)

AhSureTisGrand

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? An atheist can believe in a supernatural dimension?

But I thought it was the unscientific nature of that that led to their assurance that God or gods do not exist?

Can you give refs. to non-materialist atheism?

You might find this thread interesting

alex73

I wanted to draw away for all supernatural/Religious references and focus on the intrinsic Value of the Person. The Empirical Human Being.

Does the person have this value. I know it does. I mean something. I think every sane person has this urge to survive and excel. This value that we see in ourselves, Should we also find it reflected in others.

If we do. Should this intrinsic value be recognised and respected?

Fanny Cradock

alex73 wrote: »

I wanted to draw away for all supernatural/Religious references and focus on the intrinsic Value of the Person. The Empirical Human Being.

Does the person have this value. I know it does. I mean something. I think every sane person has this urge to survive and excel. This value that we see in ourselves, Should we also find it reflected in others.

If we do. Should this intrinsic value be recognised and respected?

Please explain how you know that humans have intrinsic worth in the absence of a Supreme Being who grants intrinsic worth? Do you suppose all life has intrinsic worth?

I'll say it again - you can not get an ought from an is.

"Humans exist in a material universe" is a fact (unless you are a solipsist). That's the "is" part.

"Therefore, humans have intrinsic worth and we should treat our fellow man in a certain way" is not a fact.
That's the "ought" part.

If you remove God then you remove any possibility that there is intrinsic worth to human life. To be sure we can say that some behaviour is beneficial for humanity. We can even draw up charters and enshrine laws that speak of the innate value of human life. But all this is a convention, albeit a happy one. Lest we forget history is littered with innumerable victims crushed under broken conventions.

Getting together and deciding that humans have intrinsic value may be a noble and worthy endeavour, but it is not the same as humans actually possessing some quality that gives them intrinsic value.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Please explain how you know that humans have intrinsic worth in the absence of a Supreme Being who grants intrinsic worth? Do you suppose all life has intrinsic worth?

I'll say it again - you can not get an ought from an is.

"Humans exist in a material universe" is a fact (unless you are a solipsist). That's the "is" part.

"Therefore, humans have intrinsic worth and we should treat our fellow man in a certain way" is not a fact.
That's the "ought" part.

If you remove God then you remove any possibility that there is intrinsic worth to human life. To be sure we can say that some behaviour is beneficial for humanity. We can even draw up charters and enshrine laws that speak of the innate value of human life. But all this is a convention, albeit a happy one. Lest we forget history is littered with innumerable victims crushed under broken conventions.

Getting together and deciding that humans have intrinsic value may be a noble and worthy endeavour, but it is not the same as humans actually possessing some quality that gives them intrinsic value.

I can't follow this at all, any chance you could expand? Not the David Hume thing, I understand that concept. What meaning are you placing on the word 'intrinsic'? Is it a derived one from the common definition?

alex73

"Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness. That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value"

Maybe we face the obvious. But man exists, we face ourselves every day. We are taught to respect others, for who the are. Yet we don't see the instrinic value of all people.

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Alex73. But I take his use of "intrinsic value" to mean that humans possess a quality that makes us somehow more valuable than other life in some sort of universal sense. I don't know how better to explain it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

"belonging to a thing by its very nature"

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Alex73. But I take his use of "intrinsic value" to mean that humans possess a quality that makes us somehow more valuable than other life in some sort of universal sense. I don't know how better to explain it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic

"belonging to a thing by its very nature"

...and nothing that belongs to homo sapiens by their nature in your opinion give them value?

Doctor DooM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Really? An atheist can believe in a supernatural dimension?

But I thought it was the unscientific nature of that that led to their assurance that God or gods do not exist?

Can you give refs. to non-materialist atheism?

He really doesn't need to, the hint is in the word "atheist", which only indicates a lack of belief in a god, and nothing more than that. I know a (I believe very flakey and confused) atheist who believes in ghosts.

What you've described is more close to a sceptic, but that's getting way off track.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But they have no logical reason to consider themselves valuable. The only 'reason' they have for doing so is that it copes with their fear of the consequences of doing otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean. What would you consider a logical reason to consider yourself valuable?

Isn't a logical reason to value something not because you consider it valuable?

I consider myself valuable because I wish to live, I wish to remain undamaged. These things are important to me and thus are valuable to me. My existence, safety and lack of pain/suffering has value to me, thus I consider myself valuable. In what way is that illogical?

This seems not less logical than saying humans are valuable because God says they are. In fact that idea raises the question do you actually value humans, or do you just do what God says because he values humans and you do what you are told. If you yourself do not value humans but are merely following instructions, like someone taking care with their bosses car that they actually care little about, this would raise worrying questions about what you would do if you came to believe your notions of God valuing life were mistaken.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They instinctively fear death, and to be a meaningless intelligence offers so many easy roads both to self-inflicted extinction and societal disorder leading to extinction. Better to have feelings of self-worth and communal support, in order to protect life.

Well yes, that is sort of the point. If we did not consider each other valuable, if we did not want to live and want others around us to live, we probably would have wiped ourselves out millions of years ago (or in your case, a few thousand years ago )

wolfsbane wrote: »

But rational beings should be able to overcome these evolutionary instincts, and face the truth. Life is without objective meaning, and each one is free to cope with that as seems best to him/her. That might mean adopting a love-your-neighbour morality so that pleasant things happen to you. It might mean adopting a race supremacy morality, to dominate others and live in luxury. It might mean making your quietus with a bare bodkin. Without God, anything is OK.

That is some what irrelevant. With God you value yourself because you wish to live and be free from suffering. Without God you value yourself because you wish to live and be free from suffering.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The logic of coping is fair enough - but not pretending the morality used is other than artificial, invented for the purpose. That is, telling oneself that man is actually valuable, rather than just living as if he was.

Those are the same thing. You don't need to explain to a 6 month old baby that his mother is valuable to him. If she leaves he will cry, not because he has some how logically invented a reason to view her as valuable to him. But because she was valuable to him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The honesty test applies to us all. Christians in your scenario must admit their choice not to kill is based purely on personal choice, not on any intrinsic value in the person.

That is a very scary thought, which I do not imagine (thankfully) is shared by many Christians.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Alex73. But I take his use of "intrinsic value" to mean that humans possess a quality that makes us somehow more valuable than other life in some sort of universal sense. I don't know how better to explain it.

Ahh, whoever Alex is quoting in the post above yours has me caught up. Cheers.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

...and nothing that belongs to homo sapiens by their nature in your opinion give them value?

Yes, they are made in the image of God. If that is being excluded from the topic then I don't see what this special something could be. We might in principle agree that it's good to look out for our species. I applaud any such attempts. But standards slip so easily.

Perhaps I'm an old cynic. What do you think this value is?

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, they are made in the image of God. If that is being excluded from the topic then I don't see what this special something could be. We might in principle agree that it's good to look out for our species. I applaud any such attempts. But standards slip so easily.

Perhaps I'm an old cynic. What do you think this value is?

Like I said above I think I was misunderstanding the term 'intrinsic value'. Before reading Alex' quote I would have said 'the potential to experience joy' maybe or 'the ability to contemplate whether or not something has intrinsic value'. I think I was substituting the word 'value' for 'characteristic' in my head? Or maybe using the maths definition of the word 'value' (probably wrongly). I dunno...

I think maybe I don't believe in 'intrinsic value' then. I'd also suggest that God giving something intrinsic value is actually an example of extrinsic value as without God the value wouldn't exist and therefore it is not 'intrinsic'?

Something tells me this has probably been gone over in philosophical circles once or twice?

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

I think maybe I don't believe in 'intrinsic value' then.

It does seem like you have no option but to reject the intrinsic value of humans. The implications of this might be worth considering.

strobe wrote: »

I'd also suggest that God giving something intrinsic value is actually an example of extrinsic value as without God the value wouldn't exist and therefore it is not 'intrinsic'?

I would have thought that the position of Christianity is that existence is intrinsic to God's nature. God is, in other words. If God is not then nothing exists. Your objection seems to be a non-starter.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It does seem like you have no option but to reject the intrinsic value of humans.

That seems to be the case.

Give me a sec...Done.

The implications of this might be worth considering.

You obviously have some apparent implications to mind. Care to share them?

I would have thought that the position of Christianity is that existence is intrinsic to God's nature. God is, in other words. If God is not then nothing exists. Your objection seems to be a non-starter.

I don't see how. My objection (bear in mind my objection has only come into existence a couple of hours ago {as has my comprehension of the term 'intrinsic value} so I'm not particularly committed to it or anything) is merely that having to claim something has 'intrinsic value' because God gives something intrinsic value, makes no sense. God giving it intrinsic value means it is not intrinsic, as if something has to be given value then that value is by definition extrinsic, is it not? God existing or not wouldn't really come into it as far as I can see. Saying the Christian position is that if God doesn't exist, nothing exists, says nothing of the things that exist intrinsic value, or lack there of, surely? I think I could see how if Christianity was pantheistic perhaps your objection to my objection would hold (although I'm not sure of that) but not if God is seen as a separate entity to whatever is being suggested has intrinsic value...

(Like I say, I'm really just trying to get my head around the concept here. So I'm not trying to 'win' or anything, just reason things out.)

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

You obviously have some apparent implications to mind. Care to share them?

Not particularity. It just seems like good advice to give somebody who just decided that humans have no intrinsic worth.

strobe wrote: »

I don't see how. My objection (bear in mind my objection has only come into existence a couple of hours ago {as has my comprehension of the term 'intrinsic value} so I'm not particularly committed to it or anything) is merely that having to claim something has 'intrinsic value' because God gives something intrinsic value, makes no sense. God giving it intrinsic value means it is not intrinsic, as if something has to be given value then that value is by definition extrinsic, is it not? God existing or not wouldn't really come into it as far as I can see. Saying the Christian position is that if God doesn't exist, nothing exists, says nothing of the things that exist intrinsic value, or lack there of, surely? I think I could see how if Christianity was pantheistic perhaps your objection to my objection would hold (although I'm not sure of that) but not if God is seen as a separate entity to whatever is being suggested has intrinsic value...

(Like I say, I'm really just trying to get my head around the concept here. So I'm not trying to 'win' or anything, just reason things out.)

I don't really understand what you are trying to say or why pantheism is being injected into the debate. If we bear the image of God (a necessary being) then we possess some quality that gives us intrinsic value.

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't really understand what you are trying to say or why pantheism is being injected into the debate. If we bear the image of God (a necessary being) then we possess some quality that gives us intrinsic value.

I think his argument is that God had to delibrately give us his image, so therefore it's not intrinsic.

Or else if you say God created everything every atom would have the same intrinsic value unless he did something else special for us which would be extrinsic.

...my head hurts!

alex73

Wicknight wrote: »

I consider myself valuable because I wish to live, I wish to remain undamaged. These things are important to me and thus are valuable to me. My existence, safety and lack of pain/suffering has value to me, thus I consider myself valuable. In what way is that illogical?

You see value in yourself, a self-awareness of your existence. (not tied to Religion). You were not always aware of this, for example when you were born.

So is this value you see in yourself a universal value that we should apply to all human beings?

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not particularity. It just seems like good advice to give somebody who just decided that humans have no intrinsic worth.

Fair enough. I'll take that advice. (could we stick to the term 'intrinsic value')

I don't really understand what you are trying to say or why pantheism is being injected into the debate.

Well pantheism is the belief that everything is god and god is everything (roughly). Therefore there is no such thing as an isolated entity. All is one. If all is one then extrinsic value may not exist as nothing can be imposed on anything by anything else from the outside. If extrinsic value doesn't exist then intrinsic value can be all that exists, in terms of value. I think...

Where as in the Christian position God is a distinct and separate entity to everything else. So claiming x has intrinsic value because of God means it's value is not intrinsic by definition because it is reliant on the separate entity. It doesn't have value in and of it's self, it has value because of it's relation to another entity, in this case God. I think...

If we bear the image of God (a necessary being) then we possess some quality that gives us intrinsic value.

That doesn't seem to make any sense. Can you explain what you are trying to say in a different way?

Fanny Cradock

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I think his argument is that God had to delibrately give us his image, so therefore it's not intrinsic.

There is no suggestion that there was a time when we were not imbued with this value.

But for the sake of clarity, just say God gave humans intrinsic value last Tuesday. Why does the addition of time to the mix (moving from one state to another) mean that we cant say that we have intrinsic value?

Perhaps I'm begging the question there.

Joe1919

Immanuel Kant argues that the only intrinsic good is the 'good will' of rational beings (e.g.humans). The good of everything else is conditional.e.g. Pleasure is not always good, such as spoiling a child etc.

If we agree with Kant, the human is intrinsically good when he makes good use of his freedom in his choices and actions.

Zombrex

alex73 wrote: »

You see value in yourself, a self-awareness of your existence. (not tied to Religion). You were not always aware of this, for example when you were born.

True. While certainly children value people without consciously being aware of this (such as valuing their parents), it is not unreasonable to say that a new born baby values nothing as it is so limited in its awareness. Although they do imprint on their parents very quickly, and come to desire interaction with their parents.

But yes your over all point is valid and is to be expected as value has not meaning without someone to value it.

This could be why some religious people who define value of humans in terms relative to God believe atheists must find humans value-less. Of coure they don't, they simply have a different valuer, a different person viewing humans as valuable (ie us ourselves).

alex73 wrote: »

So is this value you see in yourself a universal value that we should apply to all human beings?

I think that is safe on a number of levels. For one, while I wasn't aware of it at the time I'm glad now that no one killed me as a baby (this may seem like a step into the issue of abortion so if it seems like that I'll just say abortion is a more complex issue that we should probably leave for another thread).

Also if I do not value life universally then it becomes more difficult for me to expect that others value my life, since humans tend to think in these terms, terms of mutual agreement and respect.

I could go around killing people yet say that I expect that everyone will value my life, but that isn't how humans work and so would be doomed to failure. People would not only want me dead to stop me killing them, but also feel justified morally in doing this under the idea that I've killed and thus forfeited my right to expect protection from being killed.

But on a more emotional level I wouldn't go around killing people anyway even if their was no reprisals, since human suffering, pain and fear upset me through the process of empathy.

I feel for the person suffering and a proportion of that feeling is transfered to me. So not only would I not kill someone, but doing so would make me feel bad, not happy.

This is a powerful reason to value others as their lack of suffering increases my happiness. I'm happy if they are happy. Therefore their happiness and lack of suffering has value to me, thus their lives are valuable to me.

wolfsbane

strobe wrote: »

Many Buddhists are atheists whilst believing in Devas and the immaterial dimensions some of them exist in. There are atheists that believe in ghosts whilst not believing in a deity.

More here.

Yes, I see the category. A religious atheism, based on a spiritual revelation that there is no God, but there are beings very like the traditional concept of gods.

That is not what I meant by atheist. I was teasing out the intrinsic value - or lack of it - that traditional (materialist) atheists can logically believe in.

**********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

wolfsbane

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You might find this thread interesting

Thanks for that.

Seems to me they are just pushing another religious view - they believe in the spirit world, but reject the idea of God.

How can this person know there is no God? All he knows (or believes he knows) is that there are ghosts. Surely that would support rather than refute the possibility that a being like God exists? The materialist at least has logic on his side - no spiritual world, therefore no God can exist.

************************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

All he knows (or believes he knows) is that there are ghosts. Surely that would support rather than refute the possibility that a being like God exists?

Ghosts as traditionally understood (the spirits of dead humans floating around the Earth) are not a Christian concept, with many (most?) Christians believing that they directly contradict Biblical teaching and the idea that after death you await judgement.

Wouldn't this make it easier to believe in ghosts if you didn't believe in the existence of God, rather than the other way around?

http://www.getchristiananswers.com/articles/what-does-bible-say-about-ghosts

The Bible assures us that we only die one time, and then we will await judgment. There are several passages which help to explain how it would not be possible for us to die and then to live on, in some sort of spirit form, as a ghost. Hebrews 9:27 (NIV) tells us clearly that we are “…destined to die once and, after that, to face judgment.” And when we are judged, the decision for us is heaven if we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (John 3:16). However, if a person chooses to become an unbeliever (and continues being an unbeliever), then their destination would be hell (Matthew 25:46; Luke 16:22-24).

There is no “in between” state of existence for us between death and eventual eternal life or eternal damnation. We are assured of this again in Matthew 25:46 (NIV), where words similar to those in Hebrews 9:27 (NIV) are used. We therefore know that there can be no “in between” state for us, and, therefore, it cannot be possible for the spirit of a deceased person to roam the earth as a "ghost". Chances are, if you truly think you have seen a “ghost,” it was probably just one of Satan’s servants (demons), sent to trick you.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

"Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness. That which is intrinsically good is nonderivatively good; it is good for its own sake. That which is not intrinsically good but extrinsically good is derivatively good; it is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else that is good and to which it is related in some way. Intrinsic value thus has a certain priority over extrinsic value"

Maybe we face the obvious. But man exists, we face ourselves every day. We are taught to respect others, for who the are. Yet we don't see the instrinic value of all people.

So you want to say a moral thing - man's value - exists without cause. It just is. That is no different from the theist saying God is.

The First Cause idea is common to us all, but you must have some logical grounds for believing it to be the First Cause. The materialist has a logical argument for holding to a self-existing universe as the First Cause. The theist likewise for God being the First Cause, the creator of the universe. But how does human value slip in there as needing no justification? Seems more like a religious assertion.

If there is no God, and the material world is the First Cause, there is no justification for holding that man is any more valuable than the cockroach. They might feel valuable to me, but that is only a subjective emotion, not the reality.

********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you want to say a moral thing - man's value - exists without cause. It just is. That is no different from the theist saying God is.

The First Cause idea is common to us all, but you must have some logical grounds for believing it to be the First Cause. The materialist has a logical argument for holding to a self-existing universe as the First Cause. The theist likewise for God being the First Cause, the creator of the universe. But how does human value slip in there as needing no justification? Seems more like a religious assertion.

If there is no God, and the material world is the First Cause, there is no justification for holding that man is any more valuable than the cockroach. They might feel valuable to me, but that is only a subjective emotion, not the reality.

********************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

Wolfsbane what is 'value' except a subjective notion that something is valuable to someone else?

In your theistic version humans are valuable because God values them.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Ghosts as traditionally understood (the spirits of dead humans floating around the Earth) are not a Christian concept, with many (most?) Christians believing that they directly contradict Biblical teaching and the idea that after death you await judgement.

Wouldn't this make it easier to believe in ghosts if you didn't believe in the existence of God, rather than the other way around?

http://www.getchristiananswers.com/articles/what-does-bible-say-about-ghosts

The identity of ghosts is another matter. But whether one sees them as visitations of angels, demons, or the departed, they all constitute believe in the spirit world - a move away from materialism.

The materialist logically can suggest God does not exist, as part of his belief system. The believer in ghosts cannot. He has to have reasons other than the logic of his system to think God does not exist.

The materialist says, Matter is all there is, therefore no God. The believer in ghosts cannot say, There is a spirit world, therefore God does not exist.

*******************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Wolfsbane what is 'value' except a subjective notion that something is valuable to someone else?

In your theistic version humans are valuable because God values them.

God is the First cause, therefore His values are THE values. Man is therefore valuable without any need of further justification.

Man is not the First Cause in the materialist ideology. Therefore his value (logically) can only be subjective. Objectively, materialism must hold man of no more value than any other part of the universe.

**************************************************************************
Genesis 9:6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.