Archives For humanist

Hello!

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.

Values. 

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?

Morals

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?

Ethics

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!

Zach

QUESTION:  WITHOUT EXPANDING ON YOUR ANSWER, DO YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE HUMANISTS CONFUSE TRUTH WITH PERSONAL TASTES?

Is Secular Humanism Truth?

Zach —  March 14, 2013 — Leave a comment

Hello!

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!

Zach

QUESTION: DOES SECULAR HUMANISM PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT LIFE?

 

How Secular Humanism Was Born

Zach —  February 11, 2013 — 2 Comments

I love the part of the country that I work and live in!  I just returned from a brisk walk in nothing but blue jeans and a long-sleeved shirt.  A slight breeze was blowing but not enough wind to require a jacket or coat!  Looking at other parts of the country, I was almost feeling smug when it dawned on me that humility is the better attitude.

I gave thanks to God for the weather that I was experiencing and repented for that moment of self!  Ahhh, what a country though!  Walking in February without a jacket!  An in the mountains to boot!

As I was walking, I began to think of the many worldviews that people see the world through.

“I wonder how I would see this beautiful day if I was looking at it through the eyes of someone with a secular humanistic worldview lens?”  I thought as I walked through the beautiful scenery while smelling the scents of nature and looking at what I believe to be God’s creation.

These thoughts continued to entertain my thinking as I walked along.  These thoughts continued to challenge my thinking as I returned home and began preparing to write this new post.  I prepared my cup of coffee and headed for my office.  As I sat down and opened my laptop, I could not but help think about the historical origin of secular humanism.

Secular humanism, once confined to a small group of philosophical thinkers until around the middle of the 19th century, when some intellectuals began to declare that religion was not a viable belief system and was born from ignorance or by self-serving priests.

 “Insofar as men have now lost their belief in a heavenly king…”

— Lippmann

These thinkers believed that religion was the enemy of scientific thinking and that more reasonable substitutes needed to replace such archaic thinking.  Auguste Comte in the first half of the 19th century introduced what he coined a Religion of Humanity which was a combining of ideas from Roman Catholic religion and atheism (a belief that there is no such thing as God).  The key factor to consider is that this Religion of Humanity was Comte’s subjective belief.

The term humanism to define an atheist worldview was first used in the first decade of the 20th century.  A Unitarian minister by the name John H. Dietrich in 1913 but the term was put into mass usage by Walter Lippmann in 1929 in his best-selling book, A Preface to Morals.  The following is a direct quote from Lippmann’s book:

“Insofar as men have now lost their belief in a heavenly king, they have to find some other ground for their moral choices than the revelation of his will. It follows necessarily that they must find the tests of righteousness wholly within human experience.”

The usage of the term humanism as it is used today to denote belief in man rather than a transcendent God the creator was established in The Humanist Manifesto in 1933

 In the next post, we will continue examining secular humanism.  Please give your comments to the question below as this adds to the value of this blog and helps me to focus the direction of the book and allows you the opportunity to become a part of it all!

Until next time!

~Zach

 

Question: Please give your thoughts on the topic of secular humanism?