I think the biggest divide we have in this discussion is that for human value to be considered intrinsic, I think requires a theistic worldview. Those who hold and atheistic worldview, I believe are applying value to human life in the extrinsic sense.
It seems to me that if value is objective (real), then it must have a source that transcends human opinion. If X, Y, and Z are valuable only because we think they are, then their value is entirely subjective. To make sense of objective, intrinsic human value one must appeal to a source transcendent to human beings, from which humans derive their value. What is that source if not God?
While I think all can agree that we can apprehend the moral worth of human beings independent of belief in God (a deliverance of epistemology), the existence of God is necessary to make sense of objective human value (a deliverance of ontology). Apart from the existence of a God that made us in His image, there is no way to elevate human value beyond the instrumental and subjective.
It seems to me that if value is objective (real), then it must have a source that transcends human opinion. If X, Y, and Z are valuable only because we think they are, then their value is entirely subjective. To make sense of objective, intrinsic human value one must appeal to a source transcendent to human beings, from which humans derive their value. What is that source if not God?
While I think all can agree that we can apprehend the moral worth of human beings independent of belief in God (a deliverance of epistemology), the existence of God is necessary to make sense of objective human value (a deliverance of ontology). Apart from the existence of a God that made us in His image, there is no way to elevate human value beyond the instrumental and subjective.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
