Human Worth, and God

This item is about a strange idea expressed in various ways, but at its core the assertion that it is irrational (and false!) to believe/assert that God, the Creator, is concerned with us, his creatures.

Here is the context:

fboiteau: "… I believe in the possibility of a creator but not one who would actually give a damn about this one speck of dust in the Universe we call the Sol System …"

Ilíon: It can't be both ways.

fboiteau: It certainly can. With about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, and the universe being populated by millions, if not billions, of galaxies, a Creator would most likely have things of much more interest than ourselves. I've also entertained the idea that the universe is actually part of some unimaginably gigantic being (if you look at an atom and a star system, both look nearly identical) of which we are but a part. We cannot see beyond subatomic levels, but it does not mean nothing exists beyond that either.

But the main reason I cannot believe a Creator watches over us is quite simple: there is no historical evidence, except for a book written hundreds of years after the events it depicts to support any truth to any religion that has deities.

Statistically, there HAS to be several other species inhabiting the Universe(and personally, I believe that if one thinks we are the only sentient species in the Universe, then this person is egocentric because of the sheer statistical possibility. Which begs the questions: Is God simply watching over us, supervising our development or does he protect us from potential invaders from other worlds? And if so, then does he also protect those other species that exist? If he does, what would happen if they had the technology to reach each other and lob warheads at one another? Would one species be preferred over the other?

And if He doesn't protect any other species but us, WHY are those other species considered of lesser importance?

Ilíon: Ah! So size (or mass) is the definitive determinate of intrinsic worth? No wonder everyone instinctively knows that an asteroid is worth more than a baby!

fboiteau: "It certainly can. With about 100 billion stars in our own galaxy, and the universe being populated by millions, if not billions, of galaxies, a Creator would most likely have things of much more interest than ourselves."

So, the mere accumulation of lifeless matter (as though there were such a thing as 'living matter') is a greater matter, objectively, than are persons? And, further, the Person who creates both that lifeless matter and those living persons has no say in which he shall value more highly?

Human persons almost always consider other persons to be more interesting than they do mere stuff; but the Person who created human persons cannot consider those persons to be more interesting than mere stuff?

Is that really what you mean to say? Or have I totally misunderstood you?


fboiteau: "I've also entertained the idea that the universe is actually part of some unimaginably gigantic being (if you look at an atom and a star system, both look nearly identical) of which we are but a part. We cannot see beyond subatomic levels, but it does not mean nothing exists beyond that either."

It's not actually the case that an atom and a star system look even vaguely similar. That view of atomic structure is an old model, a metaphor.

But, if you're entertaining an idea like this, then you're no longer entertaining "the possibility of a creator;" you're rather entertaining the denial that there is a Creator.

Also, it seems you'd be overlooking the very important fact that space and time both are aspects of "the universe." That is, that this "unimaginably gigantic being" is not itself (and cannot be) "the universe," but is rather but one item or object in "the universe."

This entertaining idea does not solve any problems; and it creates even more. And besides, is there any logical reason forbidding that you, a person, a being, may choose to be more interested in the toenail of your little toe than in all the rest combined of the matter comprising your body?


fboiteau: "But the main reason I cannot believe a Creator watches over us is quite simple: there is no historical evidence, except for a book written hundreds of years after the events it depicts to support any truth to any religion that has deities."

Well! You've certainly settled that, haven't you? What more is there to say? What matter that your claim isn't actually correct? What matter that, for instance, the historical documents we call the New Testiment were, in fact, written mere years after the events (and, some of the individual books, contemporaneously)?

But, on the other hand, my initial claim that it can't be both ways doesn't even take into account *any* "book written hundreds of years after the events it depicts"

Still, I wonder, are you sure that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul? How do you even know, in the first place, that there was such a person?


fboiteau: "Statistically, there HAS to be several other species inhabiting the Universe ..."

Indeed? What a very odd claim.


fboiteau: "... and personally, I believe that if one thinks we are the only sentient species in the Universe, then this person is egocentric because of the sheer statistical possibility. ..."

Ah! So that some human persons might "egocentrically" believe that we are very important to the Person who created us, it therefore stands to reason that this Person cannot think us to be "all that," after all?

Is that what you're saying?


fboiteau: "... Which begs the questions: Is God simply watching over us, supervising our development or does he protect us from potential invaders from other worlds? And if so, then does he also protect those other species that exist? If he does, what would happen if they had the technology to reach each other and lob warheads at one another? Would one species be preferred over the other?"

Interesting questions, no doubt. But I thought the issue was whether the Person who created us does or does not give a damn about us. I simply don't see where these questions even touch on that question.


fboiteau: "And if He doesn't protect any other species but us, WHY are those other species considered of lesser importance?"

Again, no doubt an interesting question. And, again, one the significence of which to the question at hand escapes me.

============

fboiteau: "… I believe in the possibility of a creator but not one who would actually give a damn about this one speck of dust in the Universe we call the Sol System …"

Ilíon: It can't be both ways.

Now, part of the reason it can't be both ways is that a Creator who creates persons but is utterly indifferent to those persons would be wicked, that is, morally evil. We can know this as surely as we know that any human man or woman is wicked who causes a new human being to come into existence and yet is utterly indifferent to that human being.

At the same time, morality isn't something just "out there;" morality doesn't exist on its own, it doesn't exist apart from persons. Morality is relational and interpersonal -- it is by reason of the relational and interpersonal nature of morality that we can know that the Person who created human persons has moral obligations to us, and we to him; we can know this even if we do not know just entirely what all those obligations are.


So, let us suppose that human persons are indeed the creation of a Creator, a Person. And, let us further suppose that this Creator is indeed utterly indifferent to us. That is, let us suppose that this Creator is a wicked being.

Yet, against what standard are we making the determination that our Creator is not only failing his moral obligations, but is actively and wickedly spurning them? It cannot be the case that this standard of moral goodness is grounded in our Creator, for he is wicked!

So -- since morality is relational and interpersonal -- it must be the case that there is a "higher" God than the Creator of human persons, and that it is in him that morality is grounded.

Yet, for us to be able to partake of this morality, we *must* be in some sort of interpersonal relationship to this "higher" God. Which means that the "higher" God *must* be concerned with human persons -- else, he too is wicked, as is our Creator, and morality is not really grounded in him, but rather is grounded in a "higher yet" God, who finally is good and who is concerned with us. And so on, infinitely.