Archives For human secularism

Hello and welcome back!

I’ve thought a lot about how I should present the next two segments in blog post format.  I decided to be as brief as possible without brushing over the proclaimed values of secular humanism.  It’s very important that I relate to you the lens of the worldview through which those who choose secularity over theism currently view the world.

Let’s both take another peek through this lens together, shall we?  That way, we will be ready to compare other worldviews that clash with secular humanism more accurately.

Ok, let’s get to it!

Our perusal of the world of the secular humanist is important.  Being a post-modern lens, from which to view mankind’s world, this secular philosophy has been around for centuries.  Having been entertained by philosophers who refused to believe in the supernatural, it has only become popular as a worldview paradigm since the mid-19th century.

The effect of this worldview expanded from Darwin’s evolution then rapidly into the dominant worldview in the West that we see today.  You might wish to review the historical information of secular humanism from the first post.  Hey, it can’t hurt, can it! 🙂

This final overview on secular humanism only reflects, in the most general manner, what will be detailed in the book, 21st Century Confusion: Finding Your Path to Hope and Purpose.  The following wrap-up will be in two parts to contain the length of this blog post.

This overview will summarize several values — categorically — through the lens of secular, humanist thinking.  The understanding of humanist values can be used by you to compare this philosophy against other the other worldviews that we will investigate next.

The following areas, that constitute a humanist worldview, are compact rather than comprehensive but they will provide all the information necessary for a clear understanding of secular humanism for our purposes in this blog post.  The book will delve deeper and provide more emphasis on each of the following secular, humanistic attitudes towards life (For further reading on this worldview, please ask for references in the comments section below).

“They believe that truth and morality change with the times rather than being established forever by God as an ultimate guide to understanding what is acceptable to Him and best for mankind.”

Mankind’s Existence

Humanists view the world as strictly material.  The denial of God and the supernatural is like a thread that weaves throughout their worldview about the world and the known universe.  Humanists declare that the evidence against the reality of Almighty God’s existence and His creating everything in existence is mostly conclusive.

Humanists non only declare that the evidence for evolution is greater than that for God but also that Darwinism explains truth of mankind’s existence and God is, at best, a myth. Their subjective worldview of truth is subject to change with each new discovery or their individual acceptance by their own admission.  In response to the argument that God is the creator of everything and the source of all existence, the humanist will argue, “If God is the creator of all that we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste — then who created God?”

There is no room in their paradigm to believe that an eternal creator exists outside of time or that He created all and therefore is eternal — where the meaning of eternal is having no beginning and having no end.  They deny the existence of a totally self-sufficient, all-present, all-knowing, and all-powerful Creator.

Humanistic Responsibility

Again, there is no belief of anything beyond mankind to provide a pattern for responsibility vs. irresponsibility.  This can also be transcribed as order vs. chaos.  Looking at the world from this lens indicates a belief that, “I am responsible for my own life and to live as I see fit.”

In other words, there is no creator who set everything into motion and provided the guidelines that are outside of the secular humanist.  There are no objective laws given by a perfect Creator that should govern our thoughts and behaviors and that will provide the best possible life for those who follow them.

Humanists believe that they have a responsibility towards the rest of the world.  Since they believe that they are the height of evolution, it is they who must take the reins and control the order in the world because they are the highest order and all there is.  There is no God, no fate, and no divine providence.  All responsibility is in mankind’s hands.

Changing realities

The humanistic paradigm revolves around a certain belief that nothing is certain.  This means that all truth is relevant and changing with each new scientific and societal discovery.  This, in effect, is stating that there is no objective truth because what is subjectively believed now — will change at a later time.

Humanists consider science and the material universe all that there is and that they are open to the never-ending, changing truth of discovery — not relying on a fictional and stagnated, ancient book written by simple people trying to make sense of what they did not understand.  They believe that science and morality is in constant flux; therefore, they are always changing what is true and what is considered moral reality.

They believe that truth and morality change with the times rather than being established forever by God as an ultimate guide to understanding what is acceptable to Him and best for mankind.

Self-Centered vs. Others-Centered

The humanist declares that he alone is in control of his life and does not rely on God for anything nor expects any divine help or eternal life.  They rely upon themselves, other humans of authority, and science.  They, not God, decide on what is right and what is wrong for them.  In other words, by looking out for their own interests, they put self first.  Self-will rather than God’s will best describe the lens of the secular humanist.

Societal Responsibility

The secular humanist holds to the belief that they, not God, are to be sovereign over the world and in authority for the rules of morality that govern society.  They expand on their self-proclaimed sovereignty by stating that they will not hold with intolerant, prejudicial moral values of a non-existent God like the theists do.  They denounce God as non-existent but reserve the right to change their minds about that at a later date because truth changes with the whims of society.

That wraps up this first of two, final segments on secular humanism.  Did you enjoy it?  I have tried to present this segment without bias but openly admit that I hold the personal worldview of Christianity and my lens is from biblical conservatism.  A response, relating to the question asked in the title of this post, is left to you, the reader.

Please comment on the question below as this will greatly help me in the structure of the book! [See Why]

Until next time!




You know, I can remember as a child, that the term, values had a meaning that had form and substance about it.  In other words, most (the majority) of the people I ran across held the same, basic ideas in terms of right and wrong.  That basic idea is that truth is truth, regardless of how much a person likes to believe otherwise.

I realize that I come from a very politically incorrect time in history, as far as the definition has meaning today.  That’s the value system of the era in which I was born and raised.  Just a side note, it is the same, basic value system that has been in place throughout the majority of human history.

Today, not so much.

DISCLAIMER:  The author is not completely unbiased on the subject matter under discussion.

Values, Morals, and Ethics

My take on the secular humanist belief system boils down to this.  There are three very important attributes in any belief system that must be considered.  These attributes are values, morals, and ethics.  Let’s take a look at what the secular humanist worldview believes about these three, core attributes of humanity.


To quote Paul Kurtz, a noted secular humanist, and I quote: “We believe in the ‘right to privacy.’ This includes freedom of conscience and belief; sexual preference and lifestyle, reproductive rights, contraception, and abortion; euthanasia and death with dignity.”

The way I interpret Mr. Kurtz here is that his description of values is that privacy grants human beings the supreme freedom to believe anything they wish without harboring any guilt of having broken some law or rule that exists outside of their own making.  Is this truth or is it wishful thinking on the part of the secular humanist?

“‘I just don’t like red-headed people so they need to be exterminated,’ someone might suggest.”

Mr. Kurtz also includes sexual preference and lifestyle to be a guilt-free, individualized, and socialized construct that does not revolve around external value rules.  Secular humanism subscribes that mankind is an animal, no better in value than that of the beast in the field.  That being so, this freedom to indulge in bestiality (also known as zoophilia) is approved as long as the humanist doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.  Does this appear to be short-sighted in terms of such behavior having a diverse affect on the psyche of others that is not seen at the time?  Do you agree with this end product of humanism’s guilt-free sexual expression?

Reproductive Rights, Contraception, and abortion.  The humanist worldview sees the world through a lens that values human life in many cases to the same standard of the beast.  If it is not productive to the standard of the current culture, it is expendable.   The term expendable, of course, would revolve around a subjective value that is subject to the whim of the individual.  This would appear to make human life as valuable as the subjective thoughts of those in power at the time.  Does this thinking resonate with your current worldview?

Euthanasia and Death.  Secular Humanism suggests a subjectivism in terms of killing the worthless in the population based on age, limitations, and attitudes.  These and most any other subjective reason that society as a whole or individual political or military regime declares unfit would also be possible from this worldview, could it not?  Does that appear to point to positive human value or just the opposite?  I suppose it all depends on your method of regarding such things, but does your own, particular worldview place mankind on the same level as the beast in the field or in the wild?


Friedrich Neitzsche once said, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.”  That being said, (by Neitzsche, not me), there is no doubt that he means that the term morals is whatever a person deems it to mean — as long as the person believes in his own mind that he is hurting no one.  Since everything is subjective and self-centered within the worldview of secular humanism, little doubt is left regarding the belief of the humanist in terms of hurting others.   It could easily be argued by the one being hurt, however.

This being the case, the term morals is viewed as subjective rather than objective — which is the age old debate between secular and non-secular worldviews.  We could discuss many instances but I feel that you get the idea without my over analyzing things further.   Let it suffice to say that the moral relativist can become a moral absolutist the moment another person does or says something to which the relativist does not agree with.  It’s rather amazing how innate, absolute truth can come to the fore, isn’t it, when it doesn’t satisfy?


Secularism, again, points to the subjective and personal belief of the person and societal belief of the culture surrounding that person.  This means that ethics is relative and subjective in the eyes of the secular humanist.  Is it possible that humanists are confusing tastes for truth?  By that I mean, sure — it’s possible for two people to disagree about their likes and dislikes of a color, a taste, a look, a book, etc.  But tastes are not the same as truth, are they?  Is killing a person because a person doesn’t like them justify it?  Would this not be an example of tastes rather than truth?

“I just don’t like red-headed people so they need to be exterminated,” someone might suggest.  That is how the person feels.  It’s what the person believes.  Belief is not always truth.  Does personal belief justify the murder?

Again, what is truth?  Is it how a person personally feels about something or how a society desires to behave?  Is it something beyond mankind that sets what is right or wrong?

Our time has, again, come to an end!  We shall continue our study of secular humanism and its particular worldview lens in our next post.

Won’t you lease answer the question below and help this blog to serve its intended purpose?

Until next time!



Is Secular Humanism Truth?

Zach —  March 14, 2013 — Leave a comment


I apologize to you — my reader — for being so late with a new post on secular humanism. The excuse would be that I have been quite busy this past two weeks finishing the first 8 week sub-semester in a graduate class for professional counseling, ministering with my congregation, and working on sermon materials. Of course, this would be a true and accurate explanation to the lack of posts, however, behind this very true and accurate explanation lies the sinister, hidden truth called, “Mr. Procrastination” who lurks within us all.

Mr. Procrastination appears when we fool ourselves about our time limits. I took an accurate snapshot of where I have spent my time for the past two weeks. The honest truth is that I procrastinated by not managing my time. It has no logical basis because I love writing and I love the reasons that I am writing this blog. Mr. Procrastination does not care one way or another about what I love or do not love. His only concern is procrastination and he can cause us to do it so well.

If this admission has served to motivate even one person to self-examine their reasons for putting off the important, I will be happy. Please accept my humble apology and I will strive not to let Mr. Procrastination to catch up with me again and I will attempt to follow Mr. Responsibility’s example in future!

In case you have not read the first article revolving around secular humanism, please click here if you are interested in reading it NOW to understand the background for this new post. Please understand that these blog posts only represent an overview of the subject matter and each blog post must have a beginning, middle, and an end. This breaks the subject matter up over many weeks, unlike a book that is very linear and broken up into headings, subheadings, and chapters. Being who I am, I will also present blog posts that are not related to the content for the book from time to time. I promise not to veer away from the subject matter for very long, however!

This will be our second blog post on secular humanism. The book, 21st Century Confusion: Finding Your Path to Hope and Purpose, will provide a linear focus about the subject matter while also providing excellent references for further study and research at the end of each chapter for those interested in delving deeper. Let’s continue where the first article, How Secular Humanism Was Born left off.

“The point I am making here is that there is a never ending parade of theories cascading throughout modern history with no end in sight.”

In the first article mentioned above, I provided a link to, The Humanist Manifesto of 1933, which is the belief system that is prevalent on the majority of college and university campuses today. It is making inroads into many Christian colleges and universities as I write this. You can read the last humanist manifesto of 2000 here. Under the banner of liberalism, secular humanism is the underlying worldview being taught in the public school system in Western countries today.

Secular humanism was spawned in the pool of evolutional theory. I would like to introduce a quote from the journal, Scientific American:

“George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, ‘When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!’” (“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).

There is a new theory being introduced called, The Black Queen Hypothesis that suggests evolution pushes microorganisms to lose essential functions. This occurs when another species begins to perform these functions. This is counter to popular scientific thinking that living organisms evolve by adding genes instead of discarding them. If interested, here is an article explaining this theory.

The point I am making here is that there is a never ending parade of theories cascading throughout modern history with no end in sight. One theory is popularly accepted only to be replaced by another popularly accepted humanist theory that revolves around humanistic evolution: nothing proven — just speculation until the next theory comes along. A theory is just that, speculation. Is a worldview that is constantly changing its core belief one that provides security for its proponents? Faith can only come from the belief that something is true. If it ever changes, what you believed in is not true.

This is neither proof for or against evolution. This is just being provided here as a heads up to consider the options. All that glitters is not gold. Paul Kurtz wrote in the Council for Secular Humanism on March 14, 2013, and I quote:

“The evolution of the human species by means of natural selection has been an especially tortuous process; for other Homo species have become extinct—Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis. Only Homo sapiens has endured in spite of hazardous adversities. That our species has managed to survive thus far is due to luck and human pluck.”

He goes on to say:

“The meaning of life is intimately tied up with our plans and projects, the goals we set for ourselves, our dreams, and the successful achievement of them. We create our own conscious meanings; we invest the cultural and natural worlds with our own interpretations. We discover, impose upon, and add to nature.”

If this hypothesis is correct, it is a selfish one and appears void of any hope and purpose for what is the purpose of striving forward into oblivion in a world void of all hope.

In the next post on secular humanism, we will examine what this worldview provides for those who subscribe to it.

Until next time!




Discover Your Worldview!

Zach —  January 29, 2013 — 2 Comments

Things have changed outside of my study window.  I woke up to falling, blowing snow!  I had just pulled up the blog on my laptop and was ready to write today’s blog post when a scene out of my window caught my eye.  A small deer was rubbing noses with my neighbor’s dog.  Nothing unusual about that, I suppose but still, it kept coming back into my mind.

As I turned back to my monitor, it hit me—the deer and the dog.  They were interested in checking one another out.  There was no fighting or intimidation, just a natural curiosity about the other.  It was beautiful.  What had hit me was that they reminded me of two different worldviews.  I was captivated by that thought and this post is the outward expression of that thought.

“Amazing,” I thought, “two, completely different animals (worldviews) tentatively investigating the other!”  As I thought about that for a moment, I caught movement out my window and looked to see both the small deer and the dog walking side by side around the side of an embankment.

I thought to myself, “That is how I will describe the subjectivity of worldviews today!  Like the deer and my neighbor’s dog, both of them from different concepts about the world but willing to acknowledge the other.  When we understand other peoples worldviews, perhaps we can really appreciate our own even more!

If you have been keeping up with the blog posts, you know that we are about to begin looking into the worldview, human secularism.  Before we go any further, how about we take a look at a chart that will allow you to determine for yourself what your personal worldview is?  Sound good?

The following links open in another window so when finished just click off of that window to return here.  Ok then, take a break in your reading and I will wait for you to return.  Look over the chart ,answer the questions, follow the arrows, and you will find your worldview.  Ok –get ready, get set, click…What’s Your Worldview?

Welcome back!  Well, now you have an idea of what your worldview is and what it is called.  I have another chart I would like you to look over.     Worldview Comparison Chart.    After you see what your worldview believes in, come back !

If you clicked on the two links above and followed the instructions, you have a pretty good idea of what your personal worldview is.  Many people already know their worldview but many more do not.  This exercise is to get you ready to investigate the various worldviews and what they believe.

Next post, we will consider the worldview of human secularism.  I look forward to investigating with you!

Until then!



Question:  What was your worldview?  What are your thoughts on it?