Sanctity of Life?

No. Without a connection to a deity or God, the meaning of the word "sacred" is lost. Without God there is no intrinsic value to life; only a naturalistic approach to existence: survival of the fittest.

"aiki" is right. The only possible exception, (and it is contestable,) is for an atheist to murder any innocent person and then take his/her own life thereafter. Without having ever consulted God in any way, such a presumptuous person will then quickly discover that the life that was just taken was indeed sacred to the Creator of that life Who is now adversely and eternally offended with such careless violation.

musicman30mm said:

Can you construct an a priori proof that all human life is sacred, without evoking god?

Click to expand...

Why should anyone (believer) give you a reason about anything and keep God out of it? There is none. If you think about why you asked in this manner, it goes to your atheism and is your deal.

musicman30mm said:

So you are incapable of coming up with even one reason not to kill other than 'God said so?'

Click to expand...

No better reason to believe anything, but that God so said.

Don't mean to post such a strong worded post, but you are trying to remove God from where God can not be removed; which is life and reality.

musicman30mm said:

Can you construct an a priori proof that all human life is sacred, without evoking god?

Click to expand...

No. If you don't wish to believe in God, then the next best explanation is that human existence is the result of of naturalistic processes, and that we are merely another part of the universe. Without God there is no such thing as holiness, and as has already been pointed out, it is meaningless to call something sacred. In place of God, one must have a system of man-made laws. Instead of "because God said so," we would have "because Uncle Sam says so."

musicman30mm said:

Can you construct an a priori proof that all human life is sacred, without evoking god?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by an "a priori proof"? What would constitute such a proof?

What do you mean by "sacred"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

musicman30mm said:

This is a demonstration of your lack to even consider what a world without a belief in god might be like. It's a refusal to admit that the possibility that you are wrong exists. Most greviously, this kind of statement is just plain unimaginative, and is symptomatic of outright xenophobia.

I grant you, fully, your right to believe in god. However, there is no insult to be found in simply asking you to think about a hypothetical world in which you don't. You will never catch me refusing to imagine a world in which god does exist, because I have an imagination.

Click to expand...

Hi, you are aware that Chistians were not always believers I would hope. I came to Christ at 33 years old so I fairly well recall what life without God is/was like.

I post to non Christians all the time and have no problem recollecting life before I was 33, and God didn't remove my imagination when I came to Jesus.

musicman30mm said:

A priori is pure philosophy. It's armchair reasoning without going out and observing or testing the natural world. [...]

As applies to this topic, I'm using that word to mean, 'It would be immoral to kill any human.'

Click to expand...

I'll assume you aren't demanding an argument for perfect pacifism, and that it is okay, e.g., to kill someone in self-defense or in the defense of others.

If I may offer a brief sketch of an argument, I would note that human beings both need social values and are a source of social values. We have social needs that are satisfied by other human beings, and when they generously and willingly create values that satisfy those needs (such as friendship and other relationships). Human beings are also a source of talents of various sorts, which require their willingness and enthusiasm to bring forth.

To kill another person simply isn't in your self-interest. You'd be killing a potential friend, or some talent that you may have benefitted from. A rational and wise person will understand this, and refrain from killing.

And a rational and wise person, in pursuing the good for herself, will come to see those values, at least in potential, in others. It is natural for someone aligned with life to find other human life beautiful and worthwhile, and desire it for them for their own sake.

And so the rational and wise person will see no good in killing others without a good cause (such as self-defense), and see killing others as generally only destructive of what is good, or at least potentially good, in the world.

Yes, human life is sacred to human beings. Human happiness and flourishing is sacred.


eudaimonia,

Mark

musicman30mm said:

As applies to this topic, I'm using that word to mean, 'It would be immoral to kill any human.'

Click to expand...

Well, I think the whole problem of anyone making an argument for the sanctity of life without God is that, what absolute argument can anyone come up with without an absolute moral basis?

One might argue that evolutionarily we must continue the species, therefore life is sacred in that sense. However, it is not an absolute argument. for example, in the case of overpopulation that is straining food supplies to the max, in order to achieve the purpose stated above, a "culling of the herd" would be needed.

One might argue relationally that the mindless slaughter of one's own kind damages both the mental health of the slaughterer and the overall health of the community. However, that argument is still lacking because it does not offer an explanation of why such things are upsetting to people, why we cannot just take them in stride as a fact of life. Ultimately, it lacks an explanation of why there seems to be on a deep level an embedded sense of right and wrong in society.

So, anyways, that is why I think it is impossible to defend ANY moral position without the basis of an absolute moral standard.

Zunalter said:

Well, I think the whole problem of anyone making an argument for the sanctity of life without God is that, what absolute argument can anyone come up with without an absolute moral basis?

Click to expand...

While it is easy to call something an "an absolute moral basis", the reality of it still comes down to the opinion of the individual, regardless what what label are put on it. How many people point to the same god and the same bible for their "absolute moral basis", but come up with different moralities?

That is not to same bedrock moral principles that cross cultural and individual differences cannot exist, just that invoking God as the basis for it is inherently problematic.

One might argue that evolutionarily we must continue the species, therefore life is sacred in that sense. However, it is not an absolute argument. for example, in the case of overpopulation that is straining food supplies to the max, in order to achieve the purpose stated above, a "culling of the herd" would be needed.

Click to expand...

Since invoking god is no more a basis for a legitimate absolute argument, I'm not sure what the point is here.

One might argue relationally that the mindless slaughter of one's own kind damages both the mental health of the slaughterer and the overall health of the community. However, that argument is still lacking because it does not offer an explanation of why such things are upsetting to people, why we cannot just take them in stride as a fact of life. Ultimately, it lacks an explanation of why there seems to be on a deep level an embedded sense of right and wrong in society.

Click to expand...

Using an arbitrary set of quality of a particular concept of god offers no more of an explanation. I think looking at such harm sincerely and critically can yield good reasons why they are wrong, however.

So, anyways, that is why I think it is impossible to defend ANY moral position without the basis of an absolute moral standard.

Click to expand...

Since that "absolute moral standard" shifts widely according to the individual, it really does not exist. Criminal laws that address morality (i.e. murder, assualt, theft, vandalism, etc.) are arrived at quite nicely without invoking anyone's diety. This is but one example of how morality can be understood independent of one's one concept of a supernatural basis for moral standards. Morality can be understood and acheived with the use of reason, as demonstrated in throughout our lives.

This is not intended to discount one's religious-based morality, but rather to point out how meaninful common morality can exist without forcing one's personal religious views on another.

I think the fact of the matter is that life is NOT sacred to the universe.

Click to expand...

You're personifying the Universe. Not being sentient, the universe has no thought, opinion or preference about anything. This being the case, I don't see a point to your above statement.

I'm talking about a difference between how it is, and how we think it ought to be. Clearly, the way it is, there is no such thing as universal sanctity of life. You can offer up god as a reason to give human life its sacred status, but there are other reasons that do not involve god. A naturalist, or monist, or materialist, or atheist can have reasons to give life sacred status too.

Click to expand...

There are none an atheist, naturalist, monist, or materialist (all of whom are synonymous with each other) might offer that are not ultimately self-contradicting and entangled to some degree with an objective moral law -- and the Giver of that law.

Peace to you.

tcampen said:

Since that "absolute moral standard" shifts widely according to the individual, it really does not exist. Criminal laws that address morality (i.e. murder, assualt, theft, vandalism, etc.) are arrived at quite nicely without invoking anyone's diety. This is but one example of how morality can be understood independent of one's one concept of a supernatural basis for moral standards. Morality can be understood and acheived with the use of reason, as demonstrated in throughout our lives.

This is not intended to discount one's religious-based morality, but rather to point out how meaninful common morality can exist without forcing one's personal religious views on another.

Click to expand...

Though I can see your point on these issues, I still must disagree. I do not have time right now to tackle all of the individual points you made, please forgive me for that. But, what I will say is that my point was not that we cannot ARRIVE at a common morality, but that it's defense, when tested with "why" ultimately breaks down if relative morality is all that exists.

What it ultimately would have to come down to is: "What can we all agree to?" or "What group(s) has the power to determine our corporate morality?"

Can you construct an a priori proof that all human life is sacred, without evoking god?

Click to expand...

Sacred, in its purest sense, means "inside." Profane, its opposite, means "outside." For example, when people speak profanities, they are speaking words outside the bounds of acceptable language.

You were able to ask the question that you did because you were nurtured inside human culture, which includes shared, socially-learned knowledge and patterns of behaviour. No human can raise oneself outside human culture. Even kids raised by wolves are welcomed inside the culture and become a part of it. You, therefore, are sacred, as is all human life. Touche!

musicman30mm said:

Can you construct an a priori proof that all human life is sacred, without evoking god?

Click to expand...

absolutely not. Why would I want to?

aiki said:

There are none an atheist, naturalist, monist, or materialist (all of whom are synonymous with each other)

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but I don't think that those categories overlap each other perfectly. I'll agree that materialists are monists, though not all monists are materialists. An atheist does not have to be a naturalist. A naturalist does not have to be either a monist or a materialist. Naturalism is more open to the idea that consciousness exists in a way that is not reducable to material properties, even though entities with material properties are involved. Naturalists can have a dual-aspect view of entities, for example.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This thread is closed.
Debates are not allowed in this sub-forum.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5775588

The staff is addressing this thread for a necessity of further action.

Thanks,
Edial
Moderator
Team Temperance