I
recently had a discussion regarding inherent value and whether humans
have it. If interested, that discussion can found here.
While
researching the topic for discussion a friend directed me to the
following syllogism:
1.
If God does not exist, then human life does not have any inherent
value.
2.
Human life does have inherent value.
3.
Therefore, God exists.1
First,
before the premises are examined, what is meant by inherent value
needs to be explained.
In
order for something to have inherent value, value must be a part of
the thing. The value must be essential to it. In other words, the
thing did not get the value from something else. How can this be?
Before we can ask this question, however, we need to ask another:
How can something have value without someone ascribing value to it?
Here, an important observation must be made. A thing,
or object, cannot have inherent value. A person is
required to ascribe value to a thing.
So
we can focus our examination of inherent value as such: In
order for someone to
have inherent value, value must be a part of that someone.
Now, one might ask: How is this possible? Answer this question
with another question: Can a person ever not have value? Of
course not. So, we focus in even more: A person has inherent
value not because the value is
essential to them, but because personhood is
essential to them. Value necessarily follows from personhood.
Therefore,
the definition of inherent value is as follows: Inherent value
is value a person has which flows necessarily from their personhood.
Since
the definition of inherent value hinges on personhood, the above
syllogism can be rewritten as follows:
1.
If God does not exist, then no human life has personhood.
2.
Every human life does have personhood.
3.
Therefore, God exists.
Before
this syllogism can be examined, personhood must be defined. Dr.
William Lane Craig defines a person as a self-conscious moral
agent.2 This
definition implies that humans, as persons, to an extent, transcend
the material universe because we are self-aware and because of our
moral decisions. With this definition in mind, let us now examine the
syllogism.
Premise
One
If
God does not exist, then no human life has personhood. In order for
this premise to fail it must be shown that personhood can develop by
natural means (i.e. natural selection). How can the non-personal,
non-moral, material process that is natural selection do this? How
can natural selection transcend the material universe by bringing
about self-conscious beings that make moral decisions? Until this is
explained, it is perfectly rational to hold that an eternal,
ultimate person, that
transcends the material universe bestowing personhood upon a material
human body, is the best explanation for mankind’s personhood.
Premise
Two
Every
human life does have personhood. In order for this premise to fail it
must be demonstrated that there is at least one human life that does not possess personhood. Yet a human must be
a person in
order to make this determination. What is more, a human must be
a person to
initially question the premise. Finally, a human must be a person to
question the first premise. The fact that each human life has
personhood is self-evident.
So,
with the above premises standing firm, the conclusion logically
follows. God exists.
Stand
firm in Christ,
Chase
Footnotes:
