Wednesday, April 18, 2018


Unremarkably, Jesus claimed that humans are of more value than sparrows:

·       “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:6-7 ESV)

As obvious as this fact might be to us, it is impossible to prove without invoking the Creator. Why not?

To a cow, another cow has more value than a human. To a pigmy, a fellow kinsman is more valuable than a corporate CEO. These examples illustrate the fact that without God, all valuations are personal and subjective.  In any absolute sense, we cannot even claim that non-life has more value than life without an Absolute Standard. Without God, it would be like grading an arithmetic exam without absolutely correct answers.

This has massive implications when we consider society. There has to be some sort of consensus if we are going to amicably and harmoniously live together. However, in our postmodern culture, we now lack any common objective basis to establish such a consensus.

Many realize this problem and have feverishly tried to establish an objective basis for law and morality. For instance, isn’t it obvious that human life more valuable than non-life? Well, it depends on who you talk to. Some radical environmentalists claim that there are already too many humans, and we are consuming large quantities of resources. Therefore, we should consider ways to eliminate some. Meanwhile, communists had been very happy to eliminate the “oppressors.” The eugenicists were happy to eliminate the less “fit” or desirable. What makes them wrong? Are there any facts or objective standards that we can marshal against their points of view?

Some argue that our biology, intuitions, or human empathy are the bedrock of objective truth. However, empathy means different things for different people, and our intuitions are evolving. This observation raises another conundrum – By itself, what “is” (biology) cannot dictate what “ought to be” (values and life).

Besides, if one species is deemed to have more value based on his degree of intelligence or empathy, then it would follow that any individual should also be deemed to have more value based on his intelligence and empathy. And then, who will make this determination? Society, of course! So much for the concept of human equality!

As far as what the eye sees, we are not equal. What then is the basis of equality? Certainly, there are no measurements of science that can establish our equality. There is no rational basis for it apart from a God who created us all in His moral likeness.

Yes, our moribund Western culture can continue to believe in equality out of habit or a sheer act of the will. However, if it lacks any rational underpinning, it will eventually evolve into oblivion.

In desperation, we might resort to a pragmatic, cost/benefit rationale. Based upon this, we might argue that, for our good, we must regard people as of equal value. However, such a notion can exist only as a myth. Based upon pragmatic reasoning, we are already forfeiting “equal value.” Already, we euthanize those we consider less valuable than we. We abort babies and applaud voluntary euthanasia.

As our traditional God-based values continue to erode, we will begin to “progress” to involuntary euthanasia, even for the “enemies of the State.” This too will be understood as necessary and pragmatic.

When we are lost in the woods, we try to backtrack to find our way to safety. However, Western society refuses to do this. The West had once been great, the gold-standard of the rest of the world, although it is no longer PC to say so! Instead, we have been raised on the myth of the “Ugly American.” However, we are now surviving on our prior capital and reputation. The world still trusts in the West. 

Nor is it even PC to say that we’ve lost our way. This would suggest that we once had the way.

Today’s ruling dogma is multiculturalism, the celebration of the “sameness” and equal value of all cultures. In order to do this, we have destroyed any concept of objective justice and morality. We are now adrift without an anchor. If all cultures are of equal value, then there is nothing in Western culture worth preserving, right? However, we refuse to see the price we have paid to the point that our debt can no longer be repaid.

Arthur Allen Leff (1935–1981) was an atheist and professor of law at Yale Law School, who argued that the rejection of God was also the rejection of any “coherent ethical or legal system”:

·       The so-called death of God wasn’t just His funeral, but was the elimination of any coherent ethical or legal system…As it stands now, everything is up for grabs…Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor wicked, buying and selling people is depraved—but, ‘Sez who?’ God help us.

Do we understand that when we killed God killed the possibility of any stable and coherent foundation for our lives?

No comments:

Post a Comment