What is Man?
“What is man that You remember him,
the son of man that You look after him?
You made him little less than God
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him lord over the works of Your hands;
You put everything under his feet.”Psalm 8:4-6
By far, my favorite subtopic in Christian apologetics is human ontology. That’s fancy philosopher-speak for the study of the nature of mankind. It asks: What, exactly, IS a human being? Or, as the Psalm above words it, “What is man?”
Is Homo sapiens different from the animal kingdom in degree only? In other words, are we simply animals with more highly evolved cognitive capacities, including rationality? Is our “self” nothing more than our material brain? Or, are we different in kind, meaning, is there something about man that makes him essentially distinct from any other living creature, and thus, of higher value?
According to orthodox Christianity, human beings are a different kind of being altogether. Most importantly, we all have a soul, a self, which can be defined as the immaterial mind–the seat of rationality and moral awareness. Many theologians have said that having an immortal human soul (as opposed to a finite animal soul) is what it means to be made in the imago Dei, the image of God. It is this distinctive that imparts a supreme value to humans.
This is why Christians have strong convictions on bioethical issues in particular. We believe that humans are equally valuable from the moment of conception to their final breath, and should be protected and treasured at every single moment in between. To be sure, animals have considerable worth as part of God’s good creation, but human health and survival always trumps that of any animal.
Contrast this view with that of the materialist, who denies this sharp discontinuity between humans and all other organisms. By their lights, we are only different in degree, thanks to blind evolutionary processes. Our species is at the top of the food chain thanks to our more sophisticated neural networks. There is, then, no ground upon which to say humans are more precious than any other species. To do so would be to commit “species-ism,” as some atheist bioethicists, such as Peter Singer, have pointed out. Singer, you may be aware, is the Princeton professor who has said that “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons,” and “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
According to Singer, if a baby is born with abnormalities, it should be permissible to perform an after-birth abortion (infanticide) and “start all over.” And you know what? If atheism is true, and humans are only material creatures who are not of higher value and not morally accountable to a higher power, Singer is correct. He is simply being consistent in his worldview. As Wesley Smith (a conservative bioethicist and opponent of Singer’s) has so aptly phrased it, the materialist’s view implies that “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
Now, many non-theists reject the logical conclusion of their metaphysical beliefs. Something within them, I believe the very image of God they deny possessing, makes them aware that this cannot be right! Humans must be more valuable than a sewer rat, and a newborn baby should not be euthanized just because he or she suffers from an abnormality.
The problem is, the non-theist cannot offer objective justification for such beliefs. Whenever I’ve asked a non-theist to explain how they justify the claim that humans have higher value than any other living thing, the usual response has been, “Well, we have to use our emotions and/or rational faculties in these situations.” So basically, we have to use our [blindly evolved] brains to determine the value hierarchy of [blindly evolved] animals and when (and if) human animals should be protected at high cost. That assertion seems arbitrary and down-right circular to me.
On the other hand, if human beings are intentionally made by God, in His image, endowed by Him with great value, and distinct in kind from all other life forms, the problem evaporates. If Christian doctrine is correct, then objectively speaking, we have high, unalterable worth–born or unborn, able or disabled.
There is actually another serious ramification to claiming that human beings have unalienable inherent value, and it is one that a great many non-theists refuse to accept: the existence of objective morality. But the problem is, you can’t have the former without the latter. How do I figure this?
If something, such as a human being, has inherent value, then objective moral rules that serve to protect that thing must exist.
Stated another way: To argue that mankind has intrinsic value is to assume the existence of objective moral rules conducive to human preservation. Otherwise, we’re just making up reasons and we won’t all agree on what should be done in various situations. The debates over abortion and assisted suicide are perfect examples.
[Furthermore, if there is such thing as objective morality, there has to be an unchanging standard for it that exists outside of us (this is known as the grounding problem). Any attempt to formulate a moral rule without assuming the existence of an absolute standard, must rely on relativism—on human opinion, which varies from one person to the next, one culture to the next, and one time period to the next. Therefore, God–the only conceivable unchanging standard of good–is necessary for objective morality to exist. This is known as the Moral Argument for the existence of God.]
In 2014, God willing, I’ll begin my doctoral work, focusing strongly on the subject of human ontology, so you’ll likely hear much more from me on this topic in the coming years, as I grow in my knowledge and understanding. For now, I would like to direct you to the best podcast series I’ve ever worked though: “The Doctrine of Man” by William Lane Craig. It is available through the Reasonable Faith app. Just click on “Podcasts” then choose “Defenders.” So far, Dr. Craig has posted 15 installments to the series. You can also access it through iTunes at this link.
Let’s look at the hinge upon which the moral argument hangs:
if there is such thing as objective morality, there has to be an
unchanging standard for it that exists outside of us (this is known as
the grounding problem). Any attempt to formulate a moral rule without
assuming the existence of an absolute standard, must rely on
relativism—on human opinion, which varies from one person to the next,
one culture to the next, and one time period to the next. Therefore,
God–the only conceivable unchanging standard of good–is necessary for
objective morality to exist.
Because there is such difficulty nailing down what morality means – what ‘it’ actually is in order to be considered in this case ‘objective’, let us use an old trick and substitute another more accessible term and see if we still reach the same conclusion: that god is necessary for it.
Harris used the idea of altitude and comparative elevation to show why this need for an ‘objective standard’ is false; no matter what the ‘relative’ standard may be that is selected, the comparative results are objective (not to mention of extraordinary accuracy).
Go ahead. Select an arbitrary system of measurement and let’s see how that affects the real world comparative value.
We can select the Imperial system, the Metric system, a local rock, triangulated global positioning, whatever, and we still (as long as we use the same selection) determine to a billionth of a degree the comparative difference in altitude of any two spots of elevation. We don’t need god to successfully fly our planes safely to, over, and from terrains of different elevations consistently and reliably; all we need to arrive at this ‘objective’ comparison is to agree to use the same system.
In principle, the same argument holds true for comparative morality. Adding god adds nothing meaningful to affect the accuracy of the comparison as long as we agree on using the same metric. Demanding that god’s metric (and you know perfectly well the disagreement over what that is remains fatal to your argument) is essential is not a solution to informing value from a comparative metric; it is a diversion from ever reaching agreement. Agreement does not hinge on this ‘moral law giver’ any more than establishing real world altitude depends on the actual existence of an ‘elevation law giver’.
Say what?
To gain an introductory understanding of the issues (rather than the silly straw man arguments of Harris) I’d start with David Bentley Hart’s books and go from there………..http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-God-Being-Consciousness/dp/0300166842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388403091&sr=8-1&keywords=david+bentley+hart
I’m sure Mellisa can help steer you as well to the best sources. It’s a problem of knowledge ’tildeb’.
It will be some work, but worth it.
Don’t be so condescending. It’s rude.
Rather than send me off to read books you suggest and presume I know nothing of this issue, how about you read what I wrote until you understand it? There is no such ‘thing’ as an objective moral standard independent of people (but there really is human behaviour we assign to falling somewhere on a metric book-ended by the loaded terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (that we then claim represents god’s supposed metric when we really substitute our own!)). That absence doesn’t mean we cannot have objective metrics (rather than relativism run amok as is often claimed in this very silly argument for the necessary existence of god); after all, Craig’s post on the suffering of Jewish soldiers in the Canaanite genocide t- Just doin’ what I’m told to do, boss… don’t hold me accountable! – tells us all we need to ‘know’ of the moral bankruptcy of his Divine Command Theory… a theory echoed here by Melisa… and his reasoning mirrored by Himmler’s Warsaw speech to the SS. Removing god from moral consideration is an important first step to reclaiming moral autonomy and accepting responsibility for the effects of our behaviours.
It’s not more ‘knowledge’ we need of the religious kind like this this phantom ‘objective’ moral law (the synonym for ‘knowledge’ in this case meaning metaphysical nonsense divorced from reality to run a blocking scheme for a specific angle of religious apologetics); it’s more knowledge of the real kind like our shared biology that compels us to exercise empathy and sympathy and seek fairness and reciprocity that reveals the common moral considerations we share as people. No god is required. This is a worthwhile endeavor because it seeks knowledge (justifiable true beliefs as demonstrated accessible to everyone everywhere all the time independent of beliefs held about it) rather than philosophical support for a narrow religious idea divorced from the very reality it claims to describe.
A bit ironic that you use condescending sarcasm in your posts, pronounce your beliefs as dogma, and make statements like “very silly argument for the existence of God”, while scolding me for being rude. Anyway, I do accept your criticism and I apologize for my tone.
You said….”it’s more knowledge of the real kind like our shared biology that compels us to exercise empathy and sympathy and seek fairness and reciprocity that reveals the common moral considerations we share as people. No god is required.”
Tildeb, do you not know how this utopian vision ends. Have you read enough 20th century history?
Re. Harris’ new book: Harris is correct that evil and misery are objectively wrong, and not subjective, but he bases that on John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, with all of it’s faults that have been well documented for over a hundred years. Who is to say what is the greatest good? How would we draw conclusions on such a thing?
In his book ‘Free Will’ he holds that humans do not have independent thought or power of free agent choice and free will is a complete illusion. He holds that conscious awareness is an effect of chemistry in the brain, nothing more. Harris would mean that a human act of evil, caused by natural forces, are received by another human whose experiences of pain and injustice are also the result of natural forces. It is unclear how the consciousness that Harris spends so much ink refuting as an illusion can be wronged by similar natural forces in the other person. If evil is based on one brain causing evil in another brain, but both consciousnesses are an illusion and neither are truly originating a cause of anything, the basis of evil in experience is weakened at best, if not eliminated entirely.
Harris says that the real facts are not intrinsically evil in
themselves, but only evil when experienced by a person. Yet our person’s awareness is an illusion, unable to change any feelings or thoughts. He believes evil is not in the real fact of any act, say a murderous one, but in the experience of a conscious being whose consciousness is an illusion.
One of his main points is that objective morality exists, and is not subjective, but he quickly follows with his statement that we might not ever be able to determine whether any given act is moral. We do find such arguments in pop philosophy, which is why I called his ideas silly and recommended some better philosophy.
It appears that Harris is recognizing that some things are just plain wrong and some things are right, and total subjectivity does not work. This is a great first step. However, he is trying to avoid the dilemma of proving the first premise in the moral argument for the existence of God. In doing so, he tries to hold to a purely
materialistic worldview. In this he will not succeed.
Please tell me you’re not one of those faitheists who attribute violence in the 20th century to atheism, are you?
Tildeb, do you not know how this utopian vision (tildeb: referring to no need for a god) ends. Have you read enough 20th century history?
Oh my; you are. This shows you don’t care about understanding what’s actually true (totalitarian leaders centralize power and brutally remove any threats to achieving this end); you care more about imposing your belief on reality (Hitler wasn’t an atheist, and Stalin trained as a priest) and then falsely claim that your beliefs come from reality. They don’t. And you would know this if you cared. Very little (if any) violence of the 20th century was carried out to promote justified true beliefs, to promote reasonable and rational discourse, to promote respect for reality’s arbitration of our beliefs with the use of evidence-based enquiries. Us ‘militant’ atheists can’t hold a candle to the violence to both people and enlightenment principles done daily in the name of piety and to demonstrate submission to god’s final authority. Believing otherwise is to stand against what’s true.
Clearly, you don’t understand Harris’ thesis about how science can inform morality (measurable metrics) because you don’t understand why there simply isn’t any evidence to support the necessary christian assertion for free will (if it’s free, then it isn’t will, and if it’s will, then it isn’t free). But I don’t need to go there to show that no god is required for human morality that can be objectively compared and contrasted (and not a free-for-all moral relativity often laid out as the only alternative to submitting to some local version of god’s supposed moral law).
We can have common moral standards of conduct and metrics to measure them objectively independent of any need for some divine tyrant. These standards can be shown to come from our biological roots (you and I have mirror neurons that really do play a central role in all pro-social feelings we experience… feelings that underlie every moral consideration we can claim belongs to morality). To ignore this biology and its central role affecting how we feel in favour of insisting that only belief in some form of Oogity Boogity! can ground our moral sensibilities adequately is a step away from gaining applicable real world knowledge and replacing it with unjustified beliefs of assertions that are empty of real world merit. This is what Harris spent most of his book talking about: selecting the metric of human well-being to show objectively what measures promoted or detracted from attaining higher levels of it. No Oogity Boogity required.
Good stuff Melissa. I look forward to following along.