The value of life?

[CarlinKnew]

Only based on your anthropromorphisation of the concept of God.

Hey I didn't do it, blame Christianity. That is the type of god we're discussing in this thread anyway.

 

[rojse]

OK so I am wrestling with this in my mind. And before I write this post I will upfront tell you this is an attempt to address MANY posters who question how a God, or at least one of the bible could allow all the death and pain we see in our lives. I believe in God, but join in with the question of "How can God be pleased with, or allow this to happen".

For each person the threshold is different when considering the value of life. We drive down the road knowing we will kill a certain number of bugs, we walk through the woods knowing we are killing small insects under our feet. ( I know there is a section of eastern thought that values ALL life equally, and they live as monks in monestaries, these are the only exceptions I suppose)
Yet, generally speaking the bigger or more complex the life form becomes we tend to associate misery with the loss of those lives.
If we run over a turtle, or hit a deer, the feelings change in our minds when compared to the death of an ant.

So, what I am wrestling with is how we rationalize this threshold? We as humans generally speaking don't seem to mind killing smaller life forms as long as it is in our pursuit of our lives. We justify the bugs on the windshield because we have to drive to work, and we have to go to work to survive. There are of course a thousand reasons why it is acceptable to kill these life forms.

However, as we graduate to humans everything changes (for most people). We prize our lives above all. So at this point I try to see the situation in a couple of ways.
1)If I was God would I care so much if I lost one or one billion of these life forms (humans)? And just because I lose some does that mean I am not a God of Love? If as we humans can kill along our path of living our lives, can not God do the same and be a good God?
2)If we as humans have the ability to turn off or simply ignore the reality that we extinguish life all day long as we move about, than maybe it is the same for God.

I do know we as humans are capable of great acts of love, and yet we can mercilessly kill many things at the same time.

At least I am being honest about this. I see where atheist are coming from, and other philosophical minds are coming from. So as a christian I don't mind asking the same question, because I think it is fair to analyze what we consider Love=God, God=Love vs our moral fabric and how we can do the things we do.

An interesting question. I think we base our worth of life on how "cute" we perceive something. Mice, rats, snakes, spiders and ants we do not perceive as cute, and we have no qualms about killing them. On the other hand, we do about other creatures, particularly if they can look at us with large, wide eyes and have lots of fur.

 

[rojse]

Hey I didn't do it, blame Christianity. That is the type of god we're discussing in this thread anyway.

Although the opening poster is Christian, I don't think the question itself is only answerable through religious tones - Christianity doesn't have a stranglehold on morality at all.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Although the opening poster is Christian, I don't think the question itself is only answerable through religious tones - Christianity doesn't have a stranglehold on morality at all.

The question is religious, it refers to a God who is loving and good. And of course Christianity doesn't have a stranglehold on morality, much of the Bible is immoral.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Christianity doesn't have a stranglehold on morality at all.

Quite possibly, the biggest understatement of the year.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Setting aside the fact, that most atheists aren't atheists, because they see atrocities happening, and think how could a god let this happen.

No, most atheist say "If there is a God, why would he let these things happen?"

 

[Beaudreaux]

Personally, I find the concept that human life is somehow of higher value than other forms of life to be quite odd.

We have the advantage of self awareness (although there are those among us that don't use it), but other than that, I see nothing that separates us (at all) from say - a dolphin.

Keep in mind - I'm not a Buddhist or Hindu - I'm an agnostic.

Are you a vegan?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Whateve happens, happens for a reason. But one thing for sure, is that we never understand the reasons.

Then how do you know that everything happens for a reason? Maybe that's not the case.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well, I did go to New Dehli about a week ago. I loved the trip, and I've got some great pictures.

Love the Brahma bulls walking the streets.

I went to a new deli in New York a few weeks ago. Grand opening....

 

[Beaudreaux]

OK so I am wrestling with this in my mind. And before I write this post I will upfront tell you this is an attempt to address MANY posters who question how a God, or at least one of the bible could allow all the death and pain we see in our lives. I believe in God, but join in with the question of "How can God be pleased with, or allow this to happen".

For each person the threshold is different when considering the value of life. We drive down the road knowing we will kill a certain number of bugs, we walk through the woods knowing we are killing small insects under our feet. ( I know there is a section of eastern thought that values ALL life equally, and they live as monks in monestaries, these are the only exceptions I suppose)
Yet, generally speaking the bigger or more complex the life form becomes we tend to associate misery with the loss of those lives.
If we run over a turtle, or hit a deer, the feelings change in our minds when compared to the death of an ant.

So, what I am wrestling with is how we rationalize this threshold? We as humans generally speaking don't seem to mind killing smaller life forms as long as it is in our pursuit of our lives. We justify the bugs on the windshield because we have to drive to work, and we have to go to work to survive. There are of course a thousand reasons why it is acceptable to kill these life forms.

However, as we graduate to humans everything changes (for most people). We prize our lives above all. So at this point I try to see the situation in a couple of ways.
1)If I was God would I care so much if I lost one or one billion of these life forms (humans)? And just because I lose some does that mean I am not a God of Love? If as we humans can kill along our path of living our lives, can not God do the same and be a good God?
2)If we as humans have the ability to turn off or simply ignore the reality that we extinguish life all day long as we move about, than maybe it is the same for God.

I do know we as humans are capable of great acts of love, and yet we can mercilessly kill many things at the same time.

At least I am being honest about this. I see where atheist are coming from, and other philosophical minds are coming from. So as a christian I don't mind asking the same question, because I think it is fair to analyze what we consider Love=God, God=Love vs our moral fabric and how we can do the things we do.

Thousands of years of evolution have imbued us with two instincts: preservation of self and preservation of our species. There is obvious evolutionary advantage to self-preservation. With regard to our species, our civilizations and ability to organize around a society of laws has given us tremendous evolutionary advantage as well. There is, however, no instinct to preserve other species unless they serve us in some way.

If God thinks no more of us than we do of ants or bacteria, then I'm not sure how loving and good He is.

BTW, I just finished a Quarter Pounder with cheese and I must say that was one tasty cow!

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So you're confused by the fact that I have a sense of morality? Here's an example that I think we will all agree on:

A patient is dying a slow, painful death. A doctor is standing nearby who could immediately cure the patient, or at least give him a quick, painless death. Instead, the doctor does nothing. That is an immoral action.



Anyone, even a god, who allows someone to suffer pointlessly, is immoral. Why is that so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is the fact you have defined immoral as something that pertains to human life and not of an ant or spider or whatever.

 

[Seven]

I guess what I am confused on with your response is the fact you can come up with a definition of moral or immoral. How can we have survival as our main driver comfortably define immoral or moral?
Think about it? In the world you/we are painting here is not a world where webster's definition will work for what is immoral. We are stating we as humans act of an instinct to survive

But our main driver is not survival but reproduction. natural selection works on the genetic level, and as a result favors reproductive success. Altruism it seems is beneficial for the survival of the gene.

In this sense morality is something we have evolved.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Thousands of years of evolution have imbued us with two instincts: preservation of self and preservation of our species. There is obvious evolutionary advantage to self-preservation. With regard to our species, our civilizations and ability to organize around a society of laws has given us tremendous evolutionary advantage as well. There is, however, no instinct to preserve other species unless they serve us in some way.

If God thinks no more of us than we do of ants or bacteria, then I'm not sure how loving and good He is.

BTW, I just finished a Quarter Pounder with cheese and I must say that was one tasty cow!

Unfortunately this thread has turned into a rebuttal against my personal beliefs, where as I did originally inquire where this topic stood against each individuals moral fabric.
Also, I have heard I think two times so far that God must not be a nice God or good God if he loves us the same way we might love an ant. What I can say is that we treat other humans the same as we do ants many times. I have seen that plenty in my life. I have watched murder plenty of times.
I just don't see how we as humans SHOULD feel comfortable defining what is moral or not moral, when we can hug someone one day, and slit their throat the next.
Yet we can look at a God and say, "Why God? Why do you do this?"

Some have pointed out that it is the fact we have no choice and we must survive so we do what we must. I think that is a load of stuff that comes out of a cow. Because I have seen death just for the sake of death in human to human interactions. Had nothing to do with survival, just was in the air that night.

I still think this is a subject not to be taken to lightly, but to each their own.

 

[CarlinKnew]

What is hard to understand is the fact you have defined immoral as something that pertains to human life and not of an ant or spider or whatever.

I think it's immoral to make any living thing that can feel pain to suffer pointlessly. An example of pointless suffering is a slow, painful death rather than a quick and painless death. If your god existed he could have made a world in which nothing suffers pointlessly.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are you a vegan?

Not at all. I eat more meat in one day than I should eat in three days.

I wouldn't eat human flesh, unless it were in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I went to a new deli in New York a few weeks ago. Grand opening....

... and how did you find the roast beef?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think it's immoral to make any living thing that can feel pain to suffer pointlessly. An example of pointless suffering is a slow, painful death rather than a quick and painless death. If your god existed he could have made a world in which nothing suffers pointlessly.

OK so you are comfortable with defining immoral with how little pain is felt in the process.
Are you saying the a fast pointless death is OK? Or at least more moral than a slow pointless death?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Let me review this thread:
1)Life's value to some, is how cute something is.
2)Life's value is determined by our need to survive
3)Life's value depends on evoutionary instincts we posses
4)Life's value is determined by an individuals'a emotional choice or connection with the life in question
5)Life's value is only important as far as reproduction is concerned.

I would have to choose number 5. I think and agree that life's value is only important after our need to reproduce. This is a gerat way to explain why God has allowed many to die and feel pain. If God has chosen a group for himself as the bible clearly states, that he has a chosen people, then it makes perfect sense that he protects his own, and doesn't worry about the rest.
Meaning all humans are the same but, only a few of them are God's chosen, so in the act of reproduction and perserving his family, everyone else is disposable.

However we still have to come to terms with the fact he even allowed his chosen to feel a lot of pain, perhaps more than many others have to feel. Jesus is case in point. So then do we compare this to situation with how we might punish our children if they break our rules? Some spank, some do time out, some do restriction, etc... However there is always consequences for the ones we love.
With the God of the bible though it seems to us excessive. Allowing John the baptist to be beheaded for a girls pleasure. However if John was instantly brought to heaven where he was eternally safe, what is really the problem?

Edit: This further illustrates the part in the bible that says our earthly flesh is the same as a seed that we sew in the ground. That it is desposable, and has not yet become what it will become. In other words, in order for a tree to grow the seed must die, and it could be the same for us. We must die in order to become what we are suppose to be. Therfor death of humans are nothing, and does not fall under moral or immoral with God, because it is all for his pleasure anyway.

Interesting God isn't he?

 

[CarlinKnew]

OK so you are comfortable with defining immoral with how little pain is felt in the process.

That's not an exhaustive definition, but it's a good start.

Are you saying the a fast pointless death is OK? Or at least more moral than a slow pointless death?

I'm not saying it's OK, but yes it's obviously more moral than a slow painful death.

How can you possibly view your god as good and loving when he willingly allows so much pointless suffering?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Let me review this thread:
1)Life's value to some, is how cute something is.
2)Life's value is determined by our need to survive
3)Life's value depends on evoutionary instincts we posses
4)Life's value is determined by an individuals'a emotional choice or connection with the life in question
5)Life's value is only important as far as reproduction is concerned.

I would have to choose number 5. I think and agree that life's value is only important after our need to reproduce. This is a gerat way to explain why God has allowed many to die and feel pain. If God has chosen a group for himself as the bible clearly states, that he has a chosen people, then it makes perfect sense that he protects his own, and doesn't worry about the rest.

Are you saying God needs to reproduce? If so, it wouldn't be a struggle for him like it is for us. He could instantly and effortlessly create as many perfect children as he likes.

Meaning all humans are the same but, only a few of them are God's chosen, so in the act of reproduction and perserving his family, everyone else is disposable.

Do you not see the disgusting immorality of that statement? What if humans held that same view? Let's allow everyone but our own family to be tortured and raped and stricken with disease and hunger and on and on...

However we still have to come to terms with the fact he even allowed his chosen to feel a lot of pain, perhaps more than many others have to feel. Jesus is case in point. So then do we compare this to situation with how we might punish our children if they break our rules? Some spank, some do time out, some do restriction, etc... However there is always consequences for the ones we love.

If only spanking and time out were the worst forms of suffering in the world. We view those acts as morally OK because they're relatively harmless. Would you starve your child to death or allow him to be beaten and raped to death? Why not? God allows such wicked acts to happen to his children.

With the God of the bible though it seems to us excessive. Allowing John the baptist to be beheaded for a girls pleasure. However if John was instantly brought to heaven where he was eternally safe, what is really the problem?

So "oh, they're in heaven now" makes up for all of the horrendous, pointless suffering? I wouldn't want to spend eternity with such an evil god.

We must die in order to become what we are suppose to be. Therfor death of humans are nothing, and does not fall under moral or immoral with God, because it is all for his pleasure anyway.

Absolutely disgusting. That is the line of thinking that leads to suicide bombings.

Interesting God isn't he?

It's fascinating that such an evil, primitive, fictional character is still being worshipped in the 21st century.