In my book, God’s Crime Scene, we inspect eight pieces of justification in the star by asking a elementary inquisitive doubt of a suppositious crime scene: Can we explain the justification “in the room” of the healthy star by looking only “in the room”? This is a doubt we ask at every death stage to establish if we actually have a crime scene. When justification in the room can’t be explained by staying in the room, I’ve got to consider the impasse of an intruder. If the justification inside the star can’t be explained by staying “inside” the healthy area of the universe, we must likewise consider the impasse of a vast intruder. One vicious piece of the justification in the star is the existence of dignified obligations. Can we explain these obligations by staying “inside the room”? Can naturalism comment for the human grace and value required to belligerent dignified obligations?
Why do we as humans feel thankful toward other humans when we don’t commend dignified obligations toward other forms of life on the planet? We occasionally demur to eliminate the rodents and insects in the homes, and we feel no dignified requirement toward the weeds flourishing in the garden. What, from a naturalistic perspective, gives us the right to consider humans differently? Can we stay “inside the room” of the star to explain because humans ought to be respected with grace and value when we don’t means these considerations to other class or forms of life?
If humans are simply the product of blind earthy and chemical laws, then there is no reason to trust we are anything some-more than the random effect of an evolutionary process. If this is the case, then there’s zero special about us when compared to other class or forms of life in the environment.
To make matters worse, humans mostly act badly, nonetheless we provide humans as yet we are somehow opposite than other class and estimable of dignified obligation. We hold humans to a aloft customary than we hold other species, and we perspective the actions of other animals but dignified condemnation. Ethicist Richard Taylor observes: “A hawk that seizes a fish from the sea kills it, but does not murder it; and another hawk that seizes the fish from the talons of the first takes it, but does not steal it—for nothing of these things is forbidden.” If humans are just like other animals as the unintended outcome of blind earthy processes, then because do we consider the actions differently than the actions of the hawks in Taylor’s example? As William Lane Craig observes, “To consider that human beings are special is to be guilty of speciesism, an undue disposition toward one’s own species.”
Growing up, we was fan of Star Trek. Imagine an partial in which a race of aliens from another world invades earth with the idea of enslaving humans for their own greedy functions (not an surprising Star Trek storyline!). In a unfolding such as this, would we as humans have a right to complain? After all, we have a story of using horses, dogs, oxen, and a accumulation of other class in a identical way. How could we disagree against such diagnosis by a class as higher to us as we are to other forms of life on this planet?
Those who stay “inside the room” of the star to comment for unique human grace and fundamental human value simply can't clear their influence toward humans. If, however, humans are the special origination of a Creator God who combined us in His image, the position “inside the room” would indeed be estimable of dignified obligation.[This is an mention from God’s Crime Scene (and first seemed on the Cold-Case Christianity website). It is partial of a incomparable section on the existence of objective, conceptual dignified truths. The existence of dignified law and requirement is just one of eight evidences “inside the room” that indicate to the reasonable deduction of a Creator God “outside the room.” For a much some-more minute hearing of this critical piece of evidence, greatfully review Chapter Seven: Law and Order – Is Morality More Than An Opinion?]