Optimistic Secular Humanism
Dana
Optimistic Secular Humanism
by Dennis H. McCallum
Humanism is an ideology based on the centrality of humankind. It is possible
to espouse theistic humanism, or even Christian Humanism. In these cases,
the term humanism means a concern for humanistic goals, with the
understanding that God is the final solution to man's needs. Secular
humanism, on the other hand, implies a focus on man apart from God, whether
or not God exists.
Recognizing Secular Humanism
The following statements are drawn from the Humanist Manifesto I written in
1933. Signed by many of the leading atheistic scholars of that day, it was
the benchmark test for so-called "religious humanism" up until 1973, and
continues to embody many of the key values of this world view.
"Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as
the result of a continuous process."
"Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional
dualism of mind and body must be rejected."
"Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values."
"We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and
several varieties of 'new thought'."
"Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are
humanly significant . . . all that is in its degree expressive of
intelligently satisfying human living."
"In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist
finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal
life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being."
"Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of
their naturalness and probability."
"Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious
humanists aim to foster the creativity in man and to encourage achievements
that add to satisfaction in life."
"The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and
profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that radical
change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted."
"Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather
than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from
it; (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all,
not merely for the few." [Quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure?
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, l983) p.]
The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973. This document was signed by
such notables as the author Isaac Asimov; professors Brand Blanshard,
Anthony Flew, and A.J. Ayer; psychologist B.F. Skinner; situational ethicist
Joseph Fletcher; and biologist Jacques Monod. Following are some selections
showing the general direction of the statement.
"In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical
ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an
expression of genuine, 'spiritual' experience and aspiration." The authors
quickly add, however, that "traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions
. . . do a disservice to the human species." Further, they "find
insufficient evidence for the existence of the supernatural." For as
"non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity." Moreover, "we
can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species." Hence,
"no deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
"Promises of immortal salvation and fear of eternal damnation are both
illusory and harmful." Why? Because "they distract humans from present
concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices."
Moreover, science has found "no credible evidence that life survives the
death of the body."
"We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological
sanction."
"Sixth: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes often
cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress
sexual conduct." The authors affirm "the right to birth control, abortion,
and divorce." They also permit any form of "sexual behavior between
consenting adults," for "short of harming others or compelling them to do
likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual
proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire."
It calls for "the highest commitment [i.e., to these values] of which we are
capable," a commitment which "transcends . . . church, state, party, class,
or race." [Quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure? pp.*ll5-*ll8]
Later still, a number of the signatories of the second manifesto produced a
document called, "A Secular Humanist Declaration." The intent of this
document seems to have been to remove the religious designation from
humanism (hence the term "Secular").
"It decries contemporary orthodox religion as "anti-science, anti-freedom,
anti-human," pointing out that "secular humanism places trust in human
intelligence rather than in divine guidance." It ends by deploring "the
growth of intolerant sectarian creeds that foster hatred."
Geisler points out that the turn away from the term "religious humanist" is
a change in tactics, because humanists, "have pleaded for recognition as a
religious group and...has even been defined as a religion by the United
States Supreme Court (Torcaso v. Watkins, l961). [Free Inquiry, Winter
l980 - 8l, p.3. also quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure?
p.120-121]
A Case Study-- Julian Huxley
To gain a more personal feel for a famous secular humanist thinker,
selections are included from Julian Huxley's book, Religion Without
Revelation. Huxley begins by affirming,
"I believe firmly that the scientific method...is the only method which in
the long run will give satisfactory foundations for beliefs...It consists in
demanding facts as the only basis for conclusions; and of consistently and
continuously testing any conclusions which may have been reached by new
facts and, wherever possible, by the crucial test of experiment. It consists
also...in full publication of the evidence on which conclusions are based,
so that other workers may...put a quite different interpretation on the
facts."[Julian Huxley, Religion Without Revelation. (New York,NY: Mentor
Books, l957) p.l5]
At the same time he admits that,
"There are, however, all sorts of occasions on which the scientific method
is not applicable...(because) The exigencies of everyday life... make it
necessary to act on a hasty balancing of admittedly incomplete evidence, to
take immediate action, and to draw conclusions in advance of the evidence."
Therefore, "It is here that belief plays its most important role. When we
cannot be certain, we must proceed in part by faith--"[p.16]
What happened then to the scientific method? To this he responds,
"When there exists no evidence or next to no evidence, and when the
conclusion to which we may come can have no influence on the facts, then it
is our duty to suspend judgment and hold no belief, just as definitely as it
is our duty, when practical issues hang on our decision, not to suspend
judgment, but to take our courage in both hands and act on the best belief
at which we can arrive."[p.17 (Emphasis mine)]
How does one decide which situation one is in? Huxley explains,
"I hold it to be an important duty to know when to be agnostic. I believe
that one should be agnostic when belief one way or the other is mere idle
speculation, incapable of verification: when belief is held merely to
gratify desires, however deep-seated, and not because it is forced on us by
evidence; and when belief may be taken by others to be more firmly grounded
than it really is, and so come to encourage false hopes or wrong attitudes
of mind.[p.17 (Emphasis mine)]
Unfortunately, it is at this very point that Huxley manifests an inability
to follow his own creed. He continues,
"A personal God, be he Jehovah, or Allah, or Apollo, or Amen-Ra, or without
name but simply God, I know nothing of."
This would certainly be consistent to a degree. But he goes further,
"...What is more, I am not merely agnostic on the subject...I disbelieve in
a personal God in any sense in which that phrase is ordinarily used."
[p.18 ]
It seems that Huxley is not withholding judgment here, but that he is
affirming a faith position even though the situation has not "forced" belief
on him at all! He goes on to affirm other faith positions as well,
"I disbelieve in the existence of Heaven or Hell in any conventional
Christian sense..."
"I believe, and believe strongly, that if the standards of good and evil by
which we ought to live this life are different from the standards by which
we may hope to achieve satisfaction or blessedness in a life to come, then
so much the worse for the universe and its governance; but I refuse on that
account to modify my standards of conduct in this world, for that appears to
me an outrage, and a surrender of the highest part of our nature." [p.19]
It would seem as well that the emotional outcome of belief affects his view.
"For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting
the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous." [p.32]
Critique
We can see from the case above that the presuppositions of the secular
humanist betray his/her own methodology. The key then, for the Christian
communicator, is to resist the science/faith dichotomy, unless it is
actually appropriate. In the case of morals, aesthetics, religion, and
philosophy, such a dichotomy is not appropriate.
Far from being one who has entered the light of scientific objectivity, the
secular humanist is often involved in blind faith of the worst kind. We
begin to realize that if Huxley's new age finally did dawn where, "The
insufferable arrogance of those who claim to be in sole possession of
religious truth would happily disappear..." he would himself be the first to
de-materialize. [p.33]
The debate with secular humanists, then, is intimately tied up with the
issue of burden of proof. If Huxley can claim that a strident denial of
theism is holding "no belief", and is "scientific", rather than admitting
that it is an unverified leap of faith, then the theist will obviously be
cast in a bad light.
It is always desirable to divest one's own world view of all burden of
proof, while casting that burden entirely on an opponent. If on the other
hand, that burden is shared equally (as we must insist), the humanist will
have to look to his/her own problems as well. It is to these problems that
we now turn.
Problems with Secular Humanist's Positions
The claim that all morals & values are relative is first of all
self-contradictory, because it is stated as an absolute. There is also the
problem of the inability of man to live consistently with it. All men
including humanists hold for absolute values. Will the secular humanist
admit that there is nothing necessarily (or absolutely) wrong with rape and
murder of a three year old girl? Also be aware of the biblical problem with
conflicting moral values and with the best answers available.
To the humanist there is no ultimate meaning to life. Yet no one lives in
harmony with this view. The humanist is forced to live as if his life
matters, thus belying his own belief. We can be sure that the humanist will
not hesitate to point out where the Christian is inconsistent with his/her
faith!
In view of the plausibility of the existence of God, it becomes difficult to
see why such energy is expended trying to deny Him. It is often possible to
show that the secular humanist is more interested in autonomy in the moral
area than in discovering truth.
Communication
Since the secular humanist is attempting to establish a science/religion
dichotomy, the worst thing a theist can do is to become inappropriately
emotional during a discussion. Yet this has too often been the case. The
fundamental church has also ascribed every social evil in our culture to
humanists, while ignoring the responsibility of the church for many of those
or other problems, whether by commission or omission. The result is the
appearance of another witch hunt rather than an objective treatment of the
facts.
Nothing establishes secular humanism faster than the specter of an ignorant
foam-flecked fanatic, looking for a secret international conspiracy by
humanistic devils.
It is important to also realize that the modern secular humanist has taken a
name for himself that has a history going back as far as the renaissance.
The great humanist scholars of that period, however, were mostly theists.
Their humanism consisted in taking an interest in the humanities-- including
the study of original source writings for the Bible, the classics, and other
works. Many humanist scholars also became a part of the reformation. Any
attempt by modern secular humanists to identify themselves with these men
should be resisted.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
Carol Lee Smith
usenet with copyrighted material.
> http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm
> Optimistic Secular Humanism
> by Dennis H. McCallum
> Humanism is an ideology based on the centrality of humankind. It is possible
> to espouse theistic humanism, or even Christian Humanism. In these cases,
> the term humanism means a concern for humanistic goals, with the
> understanding that God is the final solution to man's needs. Secular
> humanism, on the other hand, implies a focus on man apart from God, whether
> or not God exists.
> Recognizing Secular Humanism
> The following statements are drawn from the Humanist Manifesto I written in
> 1933. Signed by many of the leading atheistic scholars of that day,
15 of the 34 signers of Humanist Manifesto I were Unitarian clergy
persons, and one a Universalist.
With the death last year of Walter Mondale's brother, Lester, none of
them are left.
Humanist Manifesto II is here:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html
Humanist Manifesto III is here:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
> it was the benchmark test for so-called "religious
> humanism" up until 1973, and continues to embody many
> of the key values of this world view.
See I & II
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.
SECOND:
> "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as
> the result of a continuous process."
Bravo
THIRD:
> "Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional
> dualism of mind and body must be rejected."
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization,
as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a
gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment
and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular
culture is largely molded by that culture.
> "Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
> makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values."
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern
science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human
values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as
yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the
existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent
inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion
must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit
and method.
SIXTH:
> "We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and
> several varieties of 'new thought'."
SEVENTH:
> "Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are
> humanly significant . . . all that is in its degree expressive of
> intelligently satisfying human living."
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences
which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It
includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--
all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human
living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer
be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
social passion.
NINTH:
> "In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist
> finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal
> life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being."
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH:
> "Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of
> their naturalness and probability."
Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported
by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental
hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH:
> "Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious
> humanists aim to foster the creativity in man and to encourage achievements
> that add to satisfaction in life."
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and
institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent
evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations
and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the
purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their
ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function
effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH:
> "The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and
> profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that radical
> change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted."
A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end
that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal
of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily
and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared
life in a shared world.
> "Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather
> than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from
> it;** (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life
> for all, not merely for the few."
> [Quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure?
> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, l983) p.]
**Geisler got something wrong
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather
than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from
them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life
for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention
humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the
techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
> The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973. This document was signed by
thousands of people, including
> such notables as the author Isaac Asimov; professors Brand Blanshard,
> Anthony Flew, and A.J. Ayer; psychologist B.F. Skinner; situational ethicist
> Joseph Fletcher; and biologist Jacques Monod.
Edwin H. Wilson, Unitarian clergyman
Raymond B. Bragg, Unitarian clergyman
Lester Mondale, Unitarian clergyman
Raymond Bragg, Unitarian clergyman
Curtis Reese, Unitarian clergyman
Everett Dean Martin, Unitarian clergyman
Alfred Cole, Unitarian clergyman
Khoren Arisian
Mary & Lloyd Morain
Bette Chambers
Henry Morgentaler
Howard B. Radest
Herbert A. Tonne
Albert Ellis
James W. Prescott
Thomas Ferrick
Mary MacDowell
Maurice B. Visscher, internationally recognized
physiologist, medical researcher and teacher, (linked the science of
physiology with the practice of surgery, led to major developments in
cardiovascular surgery)
And others.
> Following are some selections
> showing the general direction of the statement.
"The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic
scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political
changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet,
explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and
communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther
into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we
can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease,
extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course
of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and
provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant
and meaningful life.
The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the
scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to
ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions,
totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster. Faced with
apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from
reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and
retreat."
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html has the whole thing.
<snip selected excerpts--read the whole thing>
> Geisler points out that the turn away from the term "religious humanist" is
> a change in tactics, because humanists, "have pleaded for recognition as a
> religious group and...has even been defined as a religion by the United
> States Supreme Court (Torcaso v. Watkins, l961). [Free Inquiry, Winter
> l980 - 8l, p.3. also quoted in Norman L. Geisler, Is Man the Measure?
> p.120-121]
Tell the truth about this, please. The Supreme Court has not defined
secular humanism as a religion.
"In a footnote to the Supreme Court's 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decisions,
Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'Among religions in this country which do not
teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God
is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.' The
Torcaso case dealt with religious tests for public office; it has nothing
to do with public schools. The justice's comment is far from a finding
that humanism is being taught in the schools."
--Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of
Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), pp. 229-30.
And even more importantly, this is what a court has actually ruled:
[from http://candst.tripod.com/sec-hum2.htm]
-----begin excerpt-------
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District 37 F3d. 517, 521 (9th Cir.
1994) [references to secular humanism, Torcaso v Watkins, Religion of
Humanism, etc, in the dicta/reasoning/rationale of the opinion]
Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the school
district's actions establish a state-supported religion of evolutionism,
or more generally of "secular Humanism." See Complaint at 2-4, 20.
According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two
religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of universe:"
evolutionism, or creationism. Id it 2. Thus, the school district, in
teaching evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."
We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit,
has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are"religions" for
Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of
religion (4) and the clear weight of the caselaw (5) are to the contrary:
the Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine
creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that
higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards v Aquillard,
482 U.S. 578 107, S. Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed2d 510 (1987) (holding
unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced
Treatment foir Creation-Science and Evolution- Science in Public School
Instruction Act.")
-------end of excerpt-----------
<snip balance--it requires a new post>
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Roger
news:9836f50b39af80f1...@news.meganetnews.com...
From http://www.xenos.org/personal/den.htm
Information About Me
I am a husband and father of three kids, serving as lead pastor of Xenos
Fellowship, which is an underground church planting movement. My wife is
Holly, and my kids are Jessica, Joe and Bret. We're all involved in this
wonderful Christian community, growing together as God uses us to bless
others. Holly serves as Director of Missions Mobilization, and Jess is
married to Ryan and leads a home church in the College Ministry. Joe teaches
in the College Ministry and leads a high school home church, and Bret also
teaches in the High School Group.
I love hanging around with the hundreds of excited and motivated Christian
servants in our group, and sharing the love of God with each other and those
outside the church.
I've been here since 1970 when I was a freshman in college. I had recently
come to faith in Christ and left the party lifestyle to follow Him. My
brother and I, with some friends, started a Bible study in our rooming house
because we couldn't find a place to bring our friends where they would feel
comfortable. Our little study has now grown into a church of almost 4,000
people, and I'm still here teaching the Bible and training leaders of home
groups. Cooking and hunting mushrooms are my hobbies.
Apart from my role as an elder and member of the management team, I serve in
our Central Teachings and in the College outreach. I teach courses for
adults on Wednesday evenings about half the time.
I'm also an author, and these are my books. You can see pictures and
descriptions of them, and download FREE Study Guides and/or discounts on
these pages:
Christianity: The Faith That Makes Sense (Tyndale House Publishers, 1992),
is a tool used in witnessing. The fourth printing is just hitting the
shelves (winter, 1997), and it's a completely new edition, specially
rewritten with postmodern culture in view.
The Summons, (Navpress) won the Campus Life Book of the Year Contest "Award
of Merit" for 1994. You can now get the entire book from this site FOR FREE!
Walking in Victory: Experiencing the Power of Your Identity in Christ,
(Navpress) is a study of spiritual growth based on Romans 5-8.
Spiritual Relationships That Last (Xenos Publishing) is about how to prepare
for, and build, a Christ-centered marriage. This books takes an unusual line
I think you will find interesting. Also, be sure to get the free study
guide.
The Death of Truth (Bethany) is about how postmodernism is revolutionizing
our society and how we, as Christians, should respond.
Hey! If you send me a comment or question on something I've written, be sure
to say which one you're referring to.
Emma Goldwoman
usenet with lies:
news:<9836f50b39af80f1...@news.meganetnews.com>...
> http://www.xenos.org/essays/humnsm.htm
> Optimistic Secular Humanism
> by Dennis H. McCallum
>
> Humanism is an ideology based on the centrality of humankind. It is possible
> to espouse theistic humanism, or even Christian Humanism. In these cases,
> the term humanism means a concern for humanistic goals, with the
> understanding that God is the final solution to man's needs. Secular
> humanism, on the other hand, implies a focus on man apart from God, whether
> or not God exists.
<snip the rest of the lies about humanism>
Opinions about humanism which are much closer to reality:
<<There are many basic principles of Humanism, the first of which is
similar to that of Existentialism. For Humanists there is no area of
thought that is not to be explored, questioned, or doubted. Humanists
are also unwilling to follow any set doctrine because of the belief
that perception is different from person to person and what may be a
fitting law for one may be unfair for the next. However, Humanists
believe that man must take responsibility for his own actions and
decisions. While Humanists and Existentialists promote the ideals of
individuality, both philosophies agree that reason and logic must be
used to determine appropriate actions. However, without logic,
decisions are unreliable and dangerous to oneself and others. >>
http://www.geocities.com/smhs_ap/humanism.html
Faith of a humanist:
http://www.uua.org/pamphlet/3013.html
Philosophy of Humanism
http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.pdf
Humanists talk about it
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/faqthreadview.asp?forum=696
a Humanist Sermon
http://www.uufwilmington.org/sermons/susan/12-28-2003.pdf
Dana tacks on his favorite piece of plagiarism, because he doesn't
understand anything about
integretity
citation
plagiarism
original material
> Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
> ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
> state at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
Proof of Dana's plagiarism: http://snipurl.com/3qrw