Why is Human Life So Precious?
Alex O’Connor, a rising online atheist figure, has recently expressed his view on ethics, identifying himself as an “ethical emotionalist.” He suggests that ethical statements, like “murder is wrong” or “charity is good,” are merely reflections of emotional attitudes.
He contends that Christianity provides an objective standard for valuing human life, something he feels is lacking in atheism. O’Connor, who has managed to uphold a respectable demeanor in debates—unlike many controversial atheists such as Christopher Hitchens—should be commended for his respectful approach.
However, his relativistic standpoint implies that the worth of human life is contingent upon personal feelings. This raises an interesting point: Tyler Robinson, implicated in a political assassination, seems to have vastly different emotions about human life than O’Connor. While O’Connor chooses to show respect for humanity, Robinson appears to dismiss that value when confronted with his political grievances.
If O’Connor were to engage with a political assassin like Robinson, how would he convey the importance of valuing human life? Objectively, it seems challenging. O’Connor recognizes the statement “human life is valuable” as a belief rooted in personal preference rather than objective truth. Despite finding Robinson’s beliefs abhorrent, he struggles to identify an absolute rationale for his disgust.
The crux of atheism isn’t that atheists live immoral lives; many are commendable spouses, parents, and citizens. The issue lies in atheism’s inability to provide a solid defense for the notion that every human life warrants universal respect.
Richard Dawkins, for instance, refers to humans as “survival machines,” likening them to robotic vehicles programmed to perpetuate self-interested genes. This analogy invites a troubling question: if people feel comfortable discarding outdated machines like phones or cars, what differentiates humans from those discarded objects?
While atheism struggles with this inquiry, Christianity offers a clear answer.
Pope John Paul II, in his influential work, “Theology of the Body,” highlighted that men and women are created in God’s image, which imparts objective dignity to all human beings. This perspective is echoed in Romans 5:8, which affirms that even serious moral failings do not diminish one’s inherent dignity.
A recent Vatican document underscores that every individual possesses infinite dignity that transcends any life circumstances.
If Christianity holds true, then God is the ultimate arbiter of truth, assigning an unchangeable dignity to all people that isn’t influenced by personal whims.
Nevertheless, this does not guarantee that all Christians adhere to such principles. Some may manipulate their faith to serve political ends, like Vance Belter, who reportedly disregarded human life in a heinous crime.
Christianity thus provides a universally applicable standard for safeguarding life, while atheism fails to do so. This distinction becomes crucial for societal stability and trends indicate a growing divide.
Statistical analyses reveal a decline in American Christianity from 90% in 1972 to 63% in 2022, alongside a rise in the religiously unaffiliated from 5% to 29% during the same time. Similar patterns are observable in other Western nations.
This shift is reflected in increasing rates of abortion and euthanasia since the 1970s, suggesting a troubling trend toward viewing life’s value as negotiable. Recent studies indicate that euthanasia is gaining traction even for treatable mental illnesses in countries like Canada.
Moreover, as secularism has spread, so too have mass shootings, a phenomenon marked by a disturbing rise in violence without clear motivations. The increase in mass shootings—from just five incidents between 1965 and 1969 to 33 between 2015 and 2019—hints at a nihilistic crisis that contrasts sharply with historical patterns of violence.
While society largely condemns acts of mass violence, it remains ambivalent toward issues like abortion and euthanasia.
Within an atheistic framework, can moral judgments such as those against murder arise from anything more than personal feelings, as O’Connor suggests?
As people increasingly adopt a perspective on human value that aligns with O’Connor’s emotionalism, exceptions seem to multiply, permitting a view of life that could lead to its devaluation—much like how one might discard an old car.
Does this validate Christianity? Not necessarily. Just because one perspective proves useful doesn’t equate to its truth.
However, this recognition can open avenues for meaningful discussions around Christianity. It might prompt individuals to consider the evidence supporting the faith. Unfortunately, many reject religious dialogue, perhaps due to an instinctive aversion to uncomfortable truths.
So, why is human life so valuable? In today’s chaotic landscape, subjective responses to that inquiry fall profoundly short.
