Does life have value?

Originally posted by sonhouse
But can you imagine if all of a sudden atheism were proven true AND we developed immortality for all with the caveat we can no longer have children or say 1/1000ths of the children we have now. What would life be like then? What are there, 100 odd million children under say 16 yo in the world now? So instead we get 100,000 children in the whole world. Send ...[text shortened]... . It wouldn't be a very nice place to live, same ole same ole same ole for a thousand years.....

Could have the makings of a best seller there sir.

Originally posted by LemonJello

No I don't really get it. That is because "unknown" does not mean non-existent. It just means unknown.

One man says "We don't know who produced this, but it is beautiful."
Another man agrees with its beauty and proposes an artist.
You seem to be saying the second is being schizophrenic.

Nope, you're simply not getting it. Let m ...[text shortened]... ans just that: unknown.

Can you spot the schizophrenia here? How about the special pleading?

The funny thing about value, be it an item, thing, person, it can be thought of as worthless
nonetheless when it is not. I bought some ice cream in a trip overseas once, and took my
change out of my pocket and threw it in the tip jar. After walking away I realized what I
had done wasn't what I intended, due to the value of the coins I gave away. For a 2 dollar
ice cream, I emptied my pocket off all the change I had, not a big deal in the US, but in
Israel it was. I more than likely tipped over 25 dollars, since most of the coins I put in
were not American quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies, instead they were shekels
which come in both paper and coins, coins that come in larger denominations, I
thoughtlessly threw in the jar.

The value of anything for various reasons isn't always seen, people treat other people
with contempt sometimes, they think of them as throw away to be used and abused, that
doesn't mean they are not of great worth. Our views on what is valued, vary as our tastes
do, and that says more about us than the items we are talking about in my opinion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]The funny thing about value, be it an item, thing, person, it can be thought of as worthless
nonetheless when it is not....

That's why we have yard sales. And dating sites.

Originally posted by apathist
That's why we have yard sales. And dating sites.

🙂 I've been married to my wife closing in on 30 years, so dating sites, no. Now yard sales,
my family LOVES those, bargain shopping is a near religious experience for many of them.
Personally, I'd just as soon stay home and watch a good Cub game.

Originally posted by LemonJello

A first man puts forth an argument entailing that intrinsic properties belonging to a thing can be divorced from considerations of that thing's origins.

I would rather put it this way. The intrinsic properties belonging to a think can be appreciated even if the things origin is not known.

Everyone wants to be treated as if they have value.
From the new born suckling to the 95 year old man full of days of human experience.

Whether philosopher, atheist, agnostic, wiccan, Christian or what-have-you.

I pull back here a bit from the Mona Lisa portrait because, frankly, some cultures might not see such beauty in a painting like this. But I don't know that. Its a sociological hunch.

But I think everyone towards herself or himself and much towards others, understands intuitively that they should be treated as being of value.

He even gives a nice Mona Lisa analog to drive the point home, arguing that the painting is inherently beautiful and, like duh, that wouldn't change if, counterfactually, the painting's origins were different or unknown. That just makes clear sense to him. A second man agrees, even to the point of remarking that, gee, that was actually his prior point. Further, the second man points out the obvious and natural extension of this to the discussion at hand: same thing would go for intrinsic value.

For example, if man is intrinsically valuable, that wouldn't change even if, counterfactually, man's origins were different or unknown.

Okay. That is what I wrote above. The intuitive sense of value is universal.
When we go ON from there to justify WHY this should be so, we are exploring reasons.

If I understood your earlier post right - the atheist tends not to talk about it too much.
But the theist, well, he talks about it, and boy or his reasons schizophrenic.

I'm not sure about that. It sounds like ad adom dressed up as a good academic philosophical argument. But at least the theist is tackling the issue.

"Big dum" and "schizophrenic" sound much like fancied up ad homs mainly design to belittle - maybe to make the theist imagine himself with a Dunce Hat sitting at the back of your class.

But we'll go on. Let's imagine "Big Dum" and "Schizophrenic" are good descriptions of what smarter people than both of us have reasoned for many centuries agreeing with the Bible. Man was made in the image and likeness of God.

Now if you got some problem with God up front, that may cause some red flags to rise up.
"No, man cannot be valued because man is created in the image of God. I need something making man valued that also has the functionality of denying the existence of God."

What is it then?
I think you need to do more than just jeer at the theist as "big dum" and "Schizophrenic" in thought for affirming what most humans could grasp, even from young childhood.

I mean "big dum" and " you're so very confused don't even get started " are not all that impressive.

Surely the first man should agree with this: after all, that's just the natural extension of the very point that he himself raised, the point that made so much sense to him. Inexplicably, however, the first man goes against the very point

Right here is where I am not with you. I don't think the first appreciator is now "GOING AGAINST" something. I am not sure the dichotomy holds up.

"The intrinsic or otherwise value is bestowed upon this created being."

I guess I am stopping at two questions:

How intrinsic is intrinsic ?
Where does value come from anyway ?

he brought up and now disagrees, suggesting that he really doesn't get it at all. In support of why things should all of a sudden change so radically once the discourse switches back to the subject of God, the first man gives the penetrating, insightful, and very thought-provoking consideration that "unknown" means just that: unknown.

I guess this is sarcasm.

Anyway, you see, ALL people know that they are VALUED and want to be treated so.
If the reason for this is unknown the people still know that they want to be treated as they actually are - someone of value.

Where does this come from ?

"It is just in the man of itself entirely, truly intrinsic" is not as good answer I think as the man is from the making of One who is the ground, eternally so, of value itself.

"That's a big dum schizophrenic answer!" doesn't discourage me too much.

Can you spot the schizophrenia here? How about the special pleading?

Without this "schizophrenia" tell me why you are valued.

The way I see it you either have an answer apart from God your Creator or you have only a tendency to not speak of it for fear of being schizo and denying truly "intrinsic" value.

I say whether you know it or not or want to agree or not the "instrinsic" value is bestowed upon us (aware or not aware) by God. In God is the source of the eternal.

You go to the dust and what then happens to your value ?
I think for anything to be of value there must be something that was eternally of value.

The "value" buck stops with God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've been married to my wife closing in on 30 years, ...

Sometimes long marriages are because no-one wants to pull the trigger, for one reason or another. I doubt that's the case here.So, congratulations! Quite an achievement these days.

Originally posted by apathist
Sometimes long marriages are because no-one wants to pull the trigger, for one reason or another. I doubt that's the case here.So, congratulations! Quite an achievement these days.

My grandparents went over 75 years, we got a long way to go, but I am with the right one. 😉

Originally posted by KellyJay
The funny thing about value, be it an item, thing, person, it can be thought of as worthless
nonetheless when it is not. I bought some ice cream in a trip overseas once, and took my
change out of my pocket and threw it in the tip jar. After walking away I realized what I
had done wasn't what I intended, due to the value of the coins I gave away. For a 2 ...[text shortened]... s our tastes
do, and that says more about us than the items we are talking about in my opinion.

I'm not sure how any of this relates to the point I was making, but I would agree with what you have written here.

Originally posted by sonship

A first man puts forth an argument entailing that intrinsic properties belonging to a thing can be divorced from considerations of that thing's origins.

I would rather put it this way. The intrinsic properties belonging to a think can be appreciated even if the things origin is not known.

Everyone wants to be treated as if they have ...[text shortened]... value there must be something that was eternally of value.

The "value" buck stops with God.

It continues to amaze me how thoroughly you fail to understand the points I make. (Perhaps it shouldn't though. Apparently, you even fail to understand the implications of some of your own points, but let's stick to one problem at a time.) It's clear my argument here went in one of your ears and out the other, and the only thing that got internalized was some distorted caricature of my actual argument.

I guess we can try this one more time. At this point, I still do not expect you to get it, but here's to hoping.

For a moment, forget the atheist/theist distinction. For my characterization of 'schizophrenia' here, it doesn't matter whether one is a theist or an atheist. So, what am I claiming is schizophrenic in the current context? I am claiming that the schizophrenia at issue is manifested in a subject S when there is discord between: (a) the reasons that characteristically motivate S in his or her everyday affairs and (b) S's own theoretical explications of (a). Please note here: there's nothing in this characterization specific to theism or theists. On this account, an atheist can be intellectually schizophrenic just as much as any theist. (Please re-read that a few times so it can sink in.) Now, what does this have to do with the subject of value? Well, I think it has a lot to do with value, since talk of value can be reduced to talk of reasons that do, or should, motivate. So (a) represents how the actual value ascription plays out in reality and (b) is related to theoretical commitments on the subject of value. It's relatively difficult to generalize about atheists on this, since by and large they are not collectively bound to any particular theoretical commitments falling under (b). However, theists by and large are so bound, and these theoretical commitments very often take the subject of God as criterial to value. But here's the obvious problem: whether one is an atheist or theist, those reasons falling under (a) virtually never imply the subject of God as criterial. Hence, it is easier to generalize the problem of schizophrenia to theists than to atheists. When it comes to value, theists often do not, or practically cannot, practice what they preach.

Now, how was I addressing the OP with my initial arguments? Well, the OP was asking about value and whether it is ascribed differently between atheists and theists; and these questions were prompted by puzzling statements made by theists. My response, again, is that no there is fundamentally no difference between the process by which atheists and theists ascribe value (in both cases it comes down to (a) and they look remarkably similar between the two). But why, then, do theists sometimes say weird things that would make one question this? Because of the schizophrenia issue that I outlined above. (Note: it could just as well be an atheist who says some puzzling things in virtue of some schizophrenia on their part.)

What's a good example of this schizophrenia in action? Well, theists often take things as intrinsically valuable in their everyday affairs on the basis of reasons that have absolutely nothing - zero - to do with the subject of God; and yet, when pressed about it, these same theists will claim that such value is merely contingent on God-related considerations. I think you exemplified this sort of schizophrenia, or a variant thereof, when you made your forceful Mona Lisa point and yet cannot seem to grapple with some natural implications of it.

You also seem intent on distorting my message to be that whenever one tries to gives some theoretical explication of value or its source, it invariably turns into some schizophrenic affair. No! Again, it's only schizophrenic when those explanations make little or no sense against the backdrop of one's actual practical commitments in the normal exercise of agency every day. If your actual actions in favor of X treat (either explicitly or tacitly) X as intrinsically valuable, for example, then don't turn around and give me some theory that X is only valuable if God exists. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Your theory and practice should be in harmony. If your actions treat X as valuable in and of itself, your supporting theory should harmonize with why this would be so, based on the sort of entity X is or the capacities it possesses, for example. Don't then give me a load of BS like such value would dissolve if it happened to be the case that God does not exist. Not even you are faithful to such commitments in practice.

Originally posted by LemonJello... I am claiming that the schizophrenia at issue is manifested in a subject S when there is discord between: (a) the reasons that characteristically motivate S in his or her everyday affairs and (b) S's own theoretical explications of (a). ...

Perhaps apocryphal, but I've heard of a young-earth creationist who was a competent geologist. He was aware of the contradiction but it didn't bother him for some reason. Just flip views depending on context.

Behold in awe the adaptability of the human mind.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure how any of this relates to the point I was making, but I would agree with what you have written here.

Who says what has value? You like the picture another may not, but what if what we value really reveals us for what we are?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm not sure how any of this relates to the point I was making, but I would agree with what you have written here.

You two provoke thoughts when I read what you write, not trying to disagree or agree with
either of you, so sorry not trying to relate to the point you were making. 🙂

Originally posted by apathist
Perhaps apocryphal, but I've heard of a young-earth creationist who was a competent geologist. He was aware of the contradiction but it didn't bother him for some reason. Just flip views depending on context.

Behold in awe the adaptability of the human mind.

Why does it surprise you someone could be a young earth creationist and a geologist?
Do abortion doctors surprise you?

Originally posted by LemonJello

What's a good example of this schizophrenia in action? Well, theists often take things as intrinsically valuable in their everyday affairs on the basis of reasons that have absolutely nothing - zero - to do with the subject of God; and yet, when pressed about it, these same theists will claim that such value is merely contingent on God-related considerations.

Since you take a posture that this weakness is prone to happen to either me the theist or someone else (an atheist), maybe to make is clear you could use the ATHEIST as an example for once.

Your posture is you are being purely objective, fair-handed, and the tendency is possible for both theist and atheist, why not give two examples in either case ?

I think you exemplified this sort of schizophrenia, or a variant thereof, when you made your forceful Mona Lisa point and yet cannot seem to grapple with some natural implications of it.

You noticed that I was not satisfied with my Mono Lisa example.

You also seem intent on distorting my message to be that whenever one tries to gives some theoretical explication of value or its source, it invariably turns into some schizophrenic affair. No! Again, it's only schizophrenic when those explanations make little or no sense against the backdrop of one's actual practical commitments in the normal exercise of agency every day.

I am not sure I get this. If you are saying that in each and every detail of a ten thousand actions from the day I each and every time contemplate value along the lines we are debating, you are right.

No, I do a hundreds and thousands of actions while living daily. In each and everyone of them I do not stop to meditate on God as the ground of the value of my life. That would be obsessively religious to do so.

I also do not hold the atheist responsible for stopping at every second what he is doing and meditate on the value of human life in an atheistic worldview. I would feel sorry for any person who feels he is obligated to justify from second to second every twitch of his muscles to do anything with arguments on the value of his life.

I think we are more speaking to the bigger picture.

If your actual actions in favor of X treat (either explicitly or tacitly) X as intrinsically valuable, for example, then don't turn around and give me some theory that X is only valuable if God exists. Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

I object. You seem to argue that unless I am obsessively occupied with deep philosophical justifications for the value of life on every single action, my explanation of God bestowing value on or into man is weak.

I reject that criticism as evidence of weakness in attributing the source of the value of human life to God.

Are you trying to push a good explanation to a point of absurdity by objecting it is not contemplated with each act of yawning, eating a piece of toast, taking a leak, putting one's shoes under the bed, brushing the teeth, saying "Good morning to you," or "Could I get a lift to the store?"

I can do many things throughout the day quite spontaneously. So I think to cut the grass this morning is of value with no pressing philosophical or theological debate about it. That doesn't mean that much to the big picture of why human life have value.

Your theory and practice should be in harmony.

I think your argument attempts to drive to an absurd point. So at any moment you could not stop the theist and grill him on what God has to do with some minute action shows a disharmony ?

"Theory and practice must be the same". Intense introspection does not have to be obsessively practice as a legal yoke of psychological slavery to make valid the belief that man created in God's image is the source of man's value.

If your actions treat X as valuable in and of itself, your supporting theory should harmonize with why this would be so, based on the sort of entity X is or the capacities it possesses, for example.

Your posture was that you not being biased against theism. You might impress me of this if you came up with a practical example of this "schizophrenia" using the daily life of an atheist. Demonstrate your even-handedness "not picking on theist" objectivity then, please.

Don't then give me a load of BS like such value would dissolve if it happened to be the case that God does not exist.

In the big picture life is rather meaningless if God doesn't exist.
Now we can keep ourselves busy enough without being believers is God.
Even good works can be done, charitable actions done, etc.

In the end when the whole universe expands into cold ashes of the dark, and the last star burns out and all life is dead, it all would have made no difference.

But on any given Thursday afternoon, sure, any person can occupy himself with deeds not justifying each one with the contemplation of the ultimate value question.

Not even you are faithful to such commitments in practice.

So you now give me ground to speak of my personal experience.
I am a Christian. I believe Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Christ is alive and available.

I further believe that Christ can come into my being and be one with me and I with Him, on a growing, developing and maturing bases. This is the New Testament faith to me.

Even though I believe God in Christ being dispensed into me is the eternal purpose of God, I think God does not require a religious and legal obsession which damages spontaneity in living.

Prof, you haven't budged me a bit from thinking ultimately, God is what makes you and I of value.

Now in your next post, why not explain where else you think the value of life comes from.
You've done enough to try to prove my reasons sophomoric.
Do you have a non-schizophrenic way of considering this ?