No, it was the whole Q&A section.

A minor issue. You wrote: “I never got the chance, only Christians were allowed to ask questions!”

I’m surprised. Do you mean in the whole Q and A section, or since a certain time point in that section (e. g., because up to that point mainly non-Christians asked).

Maybe the concept value is what brings Craig to his sidestep away from your (our) meaning of intrinsically. Value is a word used in a stance an agent adopts towards something. The concept therefore invites us to talk about a person’s or agent’s attitude towards something. If I say that I have intrinsic value, Craig automatically pictures a situation in which I am valued by some person. If there is no one to value me, than I can’t have intrinsic value. I think this is the source of the misunderstanding here. Value can only be in the mind of a valuer.

it annoys me how easy it is to come up with one of these defenses of Christianity. All you need to do is parallel each stage of criticism with a series of corresponding negations and suddenly a sophisticated theory of intrinsic value emerges.

Like carving off shavings of wood, they can still assert something that fits the shape of the remaining wood. That’s fine, but in practice, one would expect to see a theory like Craig’s asserted outright, rather than see it emerge in parallel with increasingly detailed criticism.

Thomas Reid: Paul,
I believe he is getting at the concept of Imago Dei.All created persons bear a likeness to God in our capacity for thought, belief, free will, and so on.
Well I think the instrinsic value is imputed to human persons as a result of our bearing a likeness to God in some respects.It’s difficult to see how a hammer might bear a likeness to a human person.To get at what I mean here, think about what essential properties they might share.  

Hmm. If that’s what Craig meant, then the existence of God is not necessary for intrinsic value. It could be the case that we do resemble God, but that he happens not to exist.

Similarly, it could be the case that God created us in his image, and then ceased to exist. We would presumably continue being intrinsically valuable, unless for some silly reason we can only be said to “resemble” things that exist at the same time as us.

IMO, he just doesn’t want to admit the inconsistency.

Thomas Reid: Well I think the instrinsic value is imputed to human persons as a result of our bearing a likeness to God in some respects. It’s difficult to see how a hammer might bear a likeness to a human person. To get at what I mean here, think about what essential properties they might share.

I concede the hammer analogy was not good.

Let me ask a different question. If we have intrinsic value because God give us intrinsic value (am I interpreting it fairly?) on what basis is it determined that God has intrinsic value?

lukeprog: along with Korsgaard, that hammer has “final” value for you.

If I have time I will try to read Korsgaard book.

I don’t know what “personal” means in this context. That God loves his creation? Something else?

I believe he is getting at the concept of Imago Dei. All created persons bear a likeness to God in our capacity for thought, belief, free will, and so on.

Given Dr. Craig’s definition of extrinsic versus intrinsic value – how does this statement translate into people having intrinsic value? In other words, I am reading it as people are just a means to some end desired by God. Humans are God’s hammer.

Well I think the instrinsic value is imputed to human persons as a result of our bearing a likeness to God in some respects. It’s difficult to see how a hammer might bear a likeness to a human person. To get at what I mean here, think about what essential properties they might share.

According to Craig, that hammer would now have “intrinsic” value, I think. But I don’t think that’s a good account of intrinsic value. I would say, along with Korsgaard, that hammer has “final” value for you.

Yeah, those are the kinds of questions I had about Craig’s theory of value. But if he’s explained it in detail somewhere, then I haven’t seen it.

“So we might well ask, ‘But why are human persons intrinsically valuable?’ and the answer will be because God is personal.”

I don’t know what “personal” means in this context. That God loves his creation? Something else?

Given Dr. Craig’s definition of extrinsic versus intrinsic value – how does this statement translate into people having intrinsic value? In other words, I am reading it as people are just a means to some end desired by God. Humans are God’s hammer.

I think I semi-understand Luke’s comment about instrumental value – but if I created an object, say a hammer, and I really loved it and tended to it would that object then have intrinsic value?

My view is that objective moral values are grounded in God’s character. Love is virtuous because God is loving. … “But why are human persons intrinsically valuable?” and the answer will be because God is personal.

Hmm… I wonder how far we can go with this:

Intelligent beings are intrinsically valuable, because God is intelligent? (So, that would include a lot more than just humans, right?)

Vengeance is virtuous because God is vengeful?

Infinite things are intrinsically valuable, because God is infinite? (So, the set of real numbers, for instance?)

Existing things are intrinsically valuable, because God’s nature is to exist. So, pretty much everything, I guess?

Seems like a very flimsy theory of value WLC has come up with.

I’ve been lurking around to see when you was going to write about this. I must say I was surprised to see he answered the question. For one who is that busy, still finds the time to answer questions to people he doesn’t even know.

What he argues is b/c God is a transcendent and personal being… therefore, makes us intrinsically valuable. Since we are intrinsically valuable(b/c God is personal), than there are such things as objective values, with regards, to the way we interact with one another.

Something is intrinsically valuable if it shares in God’s nature. So love is intrinsically valuable because God is loving; and personhood is intrinsically valuable because God is personal.

Is this right?

‘Cos if it is it would seem to put him on a a very slippery slope. How do we know what God’s true attributes are? From revelation? From observing the natural world? From introspecting on the nature of human reason? All of these sources would give us conflicting information on intrinsic value.

Maybe I’m completely wrong about this. In any event, I though Wes Morriston’s paper “What if God commanded…?” was rather good on the point of God’s nature as a source of morality. He suggests that equating goodness with Godness does not rule anything in or out of our moral universe. That criticism may only apply to a command-based ethics though.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/WhatIfGod.pdf

1. Luke didn’t claim that Craig *would* debate him. But every now and then someone says something like “It would be interesting to see you debate WLC”.

2. I’m glad to see you’ve apparently stopped signing off with the word “Respectfully”, since that was a lie.

That’s okay. All I meant to do was to illustrate the concept of intrinsic value. Either way, Craig’s notion of intrinsic value is such that the intrinsic value of human beings comes not from itself but from its relation to God, and that is the “old” notion of intrinsic value that (I think) doesn’t work.

Actually, that last paragraph was an afterthought. It literally wasn’t part of the original post. I added it after publishing the original article.

It was a surprise to me; I don’t think that’s the norm at these debates.

We’ve had some problems recently with someone who sounds just like you pretending to be multiple people all at once. Would you mind browsing my site from your own IP instead of through the proxy site Anonymouse.org?

“Hopefully this hints at why a public debate is not the best forum for getting at the truth. How the heck would Craig and I parse all these details on which our arguments depend in a 2-hour debate? There’s no freakin’ way.”

Hmmm no offense but this seems to be your thesis. Why is it at the end of your essay?

Also what makes ya think DR. Craig would debate you? Wouldn’t that be like a singing contest between Timberlake and Bocelli?

Listen, I gotta hand it to you. You’re either a prodigy on the scale of fargin Mozart, or your as nutty as a man who thinks he’s a poached egg. And the more read of ya the more I’m leaning towards the latter.

Put the glue down mate! :D

Cheers!

Jason