As we've been informed for quite some time now, America is not a Christian nation. I happen to think that's true, since "Christian" is basically defined as "one who has placed his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" and no nation can do that. But the shift from acceptance of a God to ambivalence to a God to rejection of a God is ongoing.
HBO has introduced a new series, Raised by Wolves, a science fiction tale in which two androids are tasked with raising human children on some remote and mysterious planet. The premise for this scenario is that the Earth has been destroyed by a religious war, so the androids are specifically tasked, among other things, to raise them as atheists. Presented as a sci-fi Little House on the Prairie, a story of family and pioneers and restarting human civilization, it's a "family show" ... except that underlying and driving the story is the certainty that religion is the ultimate evil and will, if left alone, kill us all. A line in the trailer has the android "mother" telling her wards, "It was belief in the unreal that destroyed the Earth." It isn't simply entertainment; it's advertisement for a worldview that demonizes God in general and Christianity in particular. (Yes, "demonizes" is irony.)
So, I have to ask. What is a human life worth? We have people literally rioting in the streets to express outrage that there are some among us who are not receiving the valuation they should. "Black lives matter!" they say ... no, shout ... and if I agree because "All lives matter," I've just made them angrier. The movement is sourced in Marxism which includes as a fundamental tenet of atheism. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.") So, tell me, how do we evaluate the worth of a human life without God? If rights are not "endowed by their Creator," where do they come from? We generally (not universally) believe that humans have a worth, a dignity, a special value that obligates us not to kill them, to be concerned for their well-being, and to treat them as we would like to be treated. Why?
The arguments here are varied, but generally the same. We recognize that we can't simply say we're "animals" and animals have value because, well, it's perfectly moral to wipe out a colony of ants who have invaded your kitchen, but not so moral to snuff out the life of a teenager that is irritating you. There is something different. So we go about trying to figure out what that "different" is and say, "That's it! That's what makes us valuable." You can find many arguments along this line, but what none of them do is tell us why being different in that way confers value. "We are self-aware" or "We can reason" or "We are emotional beings" or even "All of the above" don't say why "self-aware," "reasoning," "emotions," or a conglomeration of them are of value. That is, whatever gives us value must itself be of value, and no one goes there.
It is, therefore, ironic that our world is moving away from God while running strongly toward self-esteem, rights, and justice -- all things that cannot exist in the absence of God. Because only in God can there be justice or human value. I think the phrase is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." We make a rude gesture to God and assure Him we're just fine without Him, not realizing we removed all footing for being fine.
2 comments:
This very question arose in a recent discussion (it's reared its ugly head before) about abortion. The demand was to "prove" the unborn have the same value as the born...that from that moment of conception...etc, etc, etc. The problem, of course, is that we can't "prove" any of us has any intrinsic value or rights bestowed upon us by God. We either simply believe it (and act accordingly) or we don't.
If one looks at what those with a Naturalistic or Materialistic worldview are saying, it's clear that there has been a move to devalue human life going on for quite some time. Not only that, but they cloak this in the appearance of science, to give it credibility.
Ultimately, this worldview is self refuting in that those who espouse it virtually always fail to live as if their worldview was objectively true.
Post a Comment