Atheist: “Prove that humans have transcendent value above animals.”
Answer: The self-evident truth that humans have transcendent value (and is why we fumigate termites and not humans—no matter how little utility they might offer in return) is part of the Christian worldview and it passes the EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE test for truth.
Just as we have rational intuitions, we have moral intuitions as well. Consider the following classic syllogism:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is _______
If someone couldn’t see what logically follows we wouldn’t question the rationality of the syllogism. Rather, we would question whether the person’s rationality was functioning properly. Similarly there are things that cannot be proven but we know intuitively to be true (again this is part of the EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE portion of truth testing). Just as we have rational intuitions, we have moral intuitions as well. I am not talking about manners and societal norms that we learn from our parents, teachers, society, or the bible. I am talking about things that anybody in any place can sense (the same way anybody in any place can rationalize 2+2=4). If someone cannot understand how 2+2=4 (what is clear to ALMOST EVERY RATIONAL PERSON), we don’t call into question the laws of mathematics. Clearly that person’s rationality is not functioning. Similarly, just because some people cannot sense in their internal experience that torturing a baby for fun is evil and wrong doesn’t mean we question whether torturing babies for fun is evil. Just as the person that cannot sense how 2+2=4 does not have their rational intuitions working properly, the person that cannot sense how torturing babies for fun is evil does not have their moral intuitions functioning properly.
Some people have convinced themselves mentally that torturing babies for fun is NOT evil. But this goes completely against what ALMOST EVERY SANE PERSON knows intuitively. This is the bind the atheist is in. In order for them to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with their worldview they have to deny the existence of evil (all things evil—including torturing babies for fun). But by doing this they make themselves EXPERIENTIALLY IRRELEVANT. Most sane skeptics and agnostics would see the insanity of such a claim. But that is what logically follows a naturalist worldview. As the Russian philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed in The Brothers Karamazov (1880), "If God does not exist everything is permitted."
The person asking to “prove we have transcendent value from being made in the image of God” is like the person asking, “PROVE torturing babies for fun is evil.” No amount of evidence can match a cynic’s infinite capacity for skepticism. A skeptic rationally questions things; a cynic dismisses everything right from the start without even considering it.
It’s like the child that keeps asking, “how do you know, how do you know, how do you know, how do you know, on and on ad infinitum. There is surprisingly little that you can prove in the natural world short of mathematical proofs. Just as our rational intuition can inform us 2+2=4, our moral intuitions inform us that torturing babies for fun is evil, and that human beings have intrinsic worth and value. Even our founders understood this axiom and it’s the basis for our civil rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Notice they said, “these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…” There is no proof required here. It’s self-evident. You can choose to deny what is self-evident, but bear in mind that your denial is not because what is evident to us all is not real, it is because your commitment to your worldview forces you to deny what is self-evident to us all (i.e. what is REAL).
Just as we have rational intuitions, we have moral intuitions as well. Consider the following classic syllogism:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is _______
If someone couldn’t see what logically follows we wouldn’t question the rationality of the syllogism. Rather, we would question whether the person’s rationality was functioning properly. Similarly there are things that cannot be proven but we know intuitively to be true (again this is part of the EXPERIENTIAL RELEVANCE portion of truth testing). Just as we have rational intuitions, we have moral intuitions as well. I am not talking about manners and societal norms that we learn from our parents, teachers, society, or the bible. I am talking about things that anybody in any place can sense (the same way anybody in any place can rationalize 2+2=4). If someone cannot understand how 2+2=4 (what is clear to ALMOST EVERY RATIONAL PERSON), we don’t call into question the laws of mathematics. Clearly that person’s rationality is not functioning. Similarly, just because some people cannot sense in their internal experience that torturing a baby for fun is evil and wrong doesn’t mean we question whether torturing babies for fun is evil. Just as the person that cannot sense how 2+2=4 does not have their rational intuitions working properly, the person that cannot sense how torturing babies for fun is evil does not have their moral intuitions functioning properly.
Some people have convinced themselves mentally that torturing babies for fun is NOT evil. But this goes completely against what ALMOST EVERY SANE PERSON knows intuitively. This is the bind the atheist is in. In order for them to be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT with their worldview they have to deny the existence of evil (all things evil—including torturing babies for fun). But by doing this they make themselves EXPERIENTIALLY IRRELEVANT. Most sane skeptics and agnostics would see the insanity of such a claim. But that is what logically follows a naturalist worldview. As the Russian philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed in The Brothers Karamazov (1880), "If God does not exist everything is permitted."
The person asking to “prove we have transcendent value from being made in the image of God” is like the person asking, “PROVE torturing babies for fun is evil.” No amount of evidence can match a cynic’s infinite capacity for skepticism. A skeptic rationally questions things; a cynic dismisses everything right from the start without even considering it.
It’s like the child that keeps asking, “how do you know, how do you know, how do you know, how do you know, on and on ad infinitum. There is surprisingly little that you can prove in the natural world short of mathematical proofs. Just as our rational intuition can inform us 2+2=4, our moral intuitions inform us that torturing babies for fun is evil, and that human beings have intrinsic worth and value. Even our founders understood this axiom and it’s the basis for our civil rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Notice they said, “these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT…” There is no proof required here. It’s self-evident. You can choose to deny what is self-evident, but bear in mind that your denial is not because what is evident to us all is not real, it is because your commitment to your worldview forces you to deny what is self-evident to us all (i.e. what is REAL).