Examining the Morality of Secular Humanism and Defending the Christian Worldview

Examining the Morality of Secular Humanism and Defending the Christian Worldview

Introduction

The narrative of the Old Testament tells the story of relationship between God and Israel. Through the Torah we see how humankind was formed, how, Israel was formed, captivated, and then liberated. That is not all, however, that reader learns about. In the Torah, as well as the prophets, the reader finds many stories of how God’s people try to skirt around serving him, or even trying to outwit him, such as in the case of Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22). Yet the reader also sees in these stories of how the truth of God always wins the day. In contemporary times, the creatures of God, humanity, continue the same behavior of human cleverness of the Israelites so that they can avoid the truth. One of the most prevalent movements of this behavior is what is known as Secular Humanism. The philosophy of secular humanism has devised a complex and even sometimes compelling system that completely removes God from the picture of human existence. But, the question is: can secular humanism hold up under the scrutiny of objective evaluation? Through summarizing and evaluating secular humanism’s worldview, this paper will attempt to show how the highlighted philosophy falls apart.

Summarizing Secular Humanism

Ultimate Reality, a History

Secular Humanism did not just arrive overnight but developed through key periods in history, most notably in the Enlightenment. In fact, modern day philosophers such as Howard Radest believes Secular Humanism is the true offspring of the Enlightenment.[1] During the end of the Renaissance, philosopher Rene Descartes, began to wonder if there was more to the knowledge that existed outside of revelation and faith, something more concrete (“I think, therefor I am”).[2] This lead him to believe that God was not something humanity could study, but that man was something that should be studied instead.[3] Immanuel Kant, with his philosophical contributions, which invigorated the Enlightenment era, began to reject the knowledge coming from traditional authorities (the Church) and penned the phrase “think for yourself” (Sapere aude!) in his famous essay about the Enlightenment.[4] Christianity under his philosophy then became reduced to pure reason in support of ethics, a movement called Deism, which would go onto inspire many Enlightenment theologians.[5]

Integral to Enlightenment philosophy was the idea of cause and effect, central to
obtaining knowledge that was free of bias or faith.[6] David Hume, a contemporary of Kant, postulated that humanity only ever experiences the effect, but never the cause, and because humanity never experiences causation with the senses, it cannot be certain that it exists.[7] In Hume’s day, both science and religion heavily depended upon the concept of causation, but Hume’s relegation of causation to just a “common belief” removed its certainty by stating if “there is no proof of any such thing, then any proof that depends entirely on it is invalid.”[8]

With skepticism becoming increasingly accepted in academia and science, God had become less relevant. For many intellectuals though, the dawn of full blown Humanism was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.[9] It was Darwin’s Origin of Species that made people aware that humans supposedly evolved from a lower form of life by the process of natural selection.[10] Darwin’s theory not only challenged the creation account of Genesis in the Old Testament, but enthusiasts claim that it offers a “complete and unqualified” naturalism.[11] For the Humanist, the ultimate reality is now solely focused on the progress of humans only. God and religion is no more than a superstitious memory of a bygone era.

Morality

Darwin’s theories did not just challenge the origin of life, but morality as well. In The Descent of Man, Darwin observed how animals had social traits and feelings.[12] For Darwin, morality in humans was instinctual and evolved over time as humanity evolved rather than being imposed on us from an outside force.[13] Thus, morality was older than religion. For Humanists, if God is an invention of human evolution, then God does not truly exist. Since God does not exist for humanists then the concept of what is moral is left to humanity. Therefore, morality is relative. For Humanists, morality is dependent on social and historical arrangements and is separated into two categories, cultural and individual.[14] With cultural relativism it is the value judgement of one’s culture that makes morality normative, but with individual relativism morality is solely dependent on a person’s preference.[15] Secular Humanists support this by pointing out that many morally exemplary people have existed throughout history without being theists.[16] Also, many Humanist point out that religion, or belief in God, interferes with moral reasoning by citing the violence that theism has caused over the centuries. For the Humanist, secular morality is therefore more objective in nature.[17]

Human History and Salvation

It has been stated that Secular Humanism found it’s foothold in the Enlightenment era because of philosophical and scientific advances. That does not mean, however, that Humanism is contained to that period of history. Many secularists believe that their strain of thought can be traced back to classical Greek and Roman civilizations.[18] They use the growth of modern science and technology, education and learning, “new standards of value of contemporary conditions” as evidence for the progress of the humanist outlook.[19] Meaning, secular humanism has an optimistic view of history that presents the idea that humanity will continue to advance.

What will humanity advance to though? What is the goal for a secular humanist society? Since secular humanists believe humanity is master of its own destiny, they have strived to answer these questions. The Humanist Manifesto II proclaims that “no deity will save us,” and that “we must save ourselves.”[20] Obviously, secular humanists believe in some sort of salvation for the human race, but it does not come through supernatural means. A picture of what a perfect Secular Humanist society might be formed by what morals and values they espouse. These examples include: a confidence in the power of human creativeness, inventiveness, achievement; an emphasis on love, shared experience and human joy; a universal focus transcending national, ethnic, sexual, and racial barriers – the ideal of a world community.[21]

Evaluating Secular Humanism’s Worldview

Secular Humanism certainly has had quite the impact on the world, especially on Western society. The fact that its views took hold of science and philosophy three hundred years ago and remains prevalent in those fields is no small feat. Even so, no worldview is free from evaluation. Since Secular Humanism sought to scrutinize religions such as Christianity, it is only fair to see if Secular Humanism can hold its own weight under such scrutiny. One criteria of evaluating a worldview is through examining its logical consistency.[22] For the purpose of this next section, we will start there.

Salvation in View of Morality

It was noted above that Secular Humanists do not believe in any kind of supernatural intervention to save humanity, but that humanity needs to rely on itself to reach some kind of societal paradise. Atheist Paul Kurtz describes this ideal society in his book, In Defense of Secular Humanism, as one where there is a “universal focus transcending national, ethnic, sexual, and racial barriers.”[23] This society, he goes on to say, has a tolerance of other views and lifestyles.[24] This implies that there is space for everyone in this world to continue to practice what they believe, including religious beliefs. One question arises out of learning this: in light of what has been stated by Secular Humanists about morality, how would a peaceful society exist if morality is relative? For example, some who support relativism suggest that it is one’s culture that shapes the norm of their morals.[25] Yet, being that there are a multitude of cultures throughout the world, which culture decides what moral guidelines get to shape a universal society? Additionally, being that a Secular Humanist morality is not fixed,[26] how can a society, culture or individual, make a moral judgement that is universally acceptable? From this, it seems that the concepts of morality are self-defeating in that what could be considered wrong today is right tomorrow, or that one’s moral norms would still be subservient to another in a universal society, and therefore is logically inconsistent.

Viability of Morality and the Concept of Evil

There is an innate sense in humanity to recognize that either an act of a natural disaster, or an attack of terror, has a great negative impact on those effected by the event. The majority of people would consider things like this, evil. Even though Humanists don’t associate with any kind of supernatural religion, they still believe in the problem of evil.[27] In fact, many Humanists have chided their peers for trying to dance around using such a word, because the word “evil” is the most expressive when talking about a truly terrible event.[28] This is especially true when talking about terrorism. Many Humanists agree that the attack of September 11th, committed by humans, was an act of evil.[29] If this is the case, it does look as if Humanist have an objective standard of what evil is then. There is an issue, however, and it again has to do with the way morality is represented in Humanism. Being that Secular Humanists believe that an individual can chose what is moral based on their own preference, or a culture can shape morality, how then can humanists claim something is evil objectively while still respecting that morality is relevant? Not only does this represent a logical inconsistency, but it suggests that “evil” in the terms of Secular humanism, is not existentially viable since something that is considered evil by one person is perfectly acceptable, or even right, by another. One cannot call something or something objectively evil if the act, in the perpetrator’s mind, perfectly moral and insist that morality can still be relative. In light of this, how can the universal society that Secular Humanism ever be achieved? It doesn’t seem likely.

The Christian Worldview

Ultimate Reality

Humanists offer that the concerns of man should be with the study of man only. Yet, all over the globe exists peoples who believe in something that is more than man, something supernatural. Many peoples then tie the supernatural to the creation of the cosmos and then deem these supernatural forces worthy of worship. The Christian worldview espouses the cosmos and humanity was created by a single deity, making Him distinct from these things (Genesis 1-2).[30] This deity gave us a will to exercise, a world to cultivate and rule over, as well as moral and ethical guidelines to ensure a proper life in the eyes of this deity’s thoughts. Christians believed that this deity, God, revealed all of this through prophets and writers who recorded what was spoken to them and would eventually become the Bible. Being that Christians take the Bible as an ultimate authority of God’s revelation to man, it is God that becomes humanity’s focus, “man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”[31]

Morality

Instead of morality being relative as it is with Secular Humanism, Christianity is presents it as static and is revealed by God, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:8).” Morality in the Biblical witness was given in the form of ten commandments received by Moses. God determined the destiny of Israel based on their commitment to the morals that he put forth. In fact, because there is a static moral standard which people are expected to live by, Christianity has the ability to claim that is objectively possible to determine what evil is. Christianity, for the most part, explains that evil is essentially what goes against God’s standard of goodness.[32] The fact that God has given humanity a will of its own means it has an ability to go against those standards and commit evil. Even when God became incarnate in Christ to bring forgiveness to the world, people who believed in and followed Christ were expected to live morally and ethically in a way that pleased God. This is still true for followers of Christ and people who identify as Christian, it is a core contingent of the Christian witness.

Human History and Salvation

The goal of humanity for people like Humanists and Christians is on one level not so different and on another level, completely different. For example, both envision a future that is above all, peaceful. Both suggest that humanity can be saved, yet the difference is seen in how such a thing is accomplished. Secular Humanism believes that humanity can save itself through scientific and societal advancement even though much of those two have contributed to multiple new problems for humanity, such as nuclear weapons, chemical warfare and social Darwinism. Yet, Christianity, and even Judaism, sees the world in a fallen state and that nothing humanity can do on its own will be able to achieve any lasting salvation (Eph 2:8-9). Rather, salvation for the individual is achieved through the saving work of Christ who sacrificed himself so that the world could be reconciled back to God. Additionally, the culmination of salvation is considered to be when Christ returns and all of creation is made new (Rev 21:1).

Dialogue and Defense

Christianity makes some outstanding claims about creation and human existence. Many have made the argument that because of things like evil and suffering, God does not exist. Many have also argued that since God is not visible, he does not exist. The nuances of these arguments are often compelling, even to Christians. Therefore, since Christians claim that what they believe is true, the burden of proof is on them and so is the ability to dialogue about their proof in a respectful manner with those who oppose Christian views.

Proofs of God’s Existence

Good and Evil

In spite of evil and suffering, is it possible that God exists? Does evil and suffering point to the existence of God? Many Christians would argue, yes. Above it was stated that Secular Humanists believe that evil exists, and that evil causes suffering. This means that there has to be some standard in which evil is measured. Humanists believe that people draw upon the wisdom of collective experience to determine such things.[33] If there is a standard of what is evil then logically it must be measured against what is considered to be good.[34] Even if a person draws on the wisdom of collective experience to determine what is good or evil, the experience of those who been part of the collectivism would still have had a concept of how they got that standard. If one is a Secular Humanist and does not believe in a creator, nor believes in a moment of creation, it would mean that the universe would have always existed.[35] The point is, everything would be the product of evolution and since the universe would have always been existing, it should have meant that evolution should have already taken care of the problem of evil and suffering.[36] Since, however, evil and suffering still do exists, it throws a huge wrench into the Humanists concepts, but it also presents rational evidence for the existence of God and how humans are knowledge about the standards of good and evil.

The Resurrection of Christ

This could be a major section in itself in that it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ that is the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor 15:12-19). Therefore, it is only natural to want to defend the event. Also, because it is the cornerstone, it is naturally the most contested, and yet even people like Anthony Flew, an Atheist turned Deist, suggested that it is one of the miracles in any religion that has the best evidence.[37] The evidence is largely credible because of how the death and resurrection of Christ is handled by the authors of the Gospels. What should be noted, however, is that evidence of Christ’s life and death occurs in extrabiblical sources very close to the first century; such as: Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny. For example, the historian Josephus mentions how the Sanhedrin brought James, the brother of Jesus, who was called “the Christ” before them.[38] New Testament scholar Edwin Yamauchi notes that no one has been able to dispute such an early mention of Jesus. So, this at least gives good evidence that Jesus was an actual historical person.

As far as the Gospels are concerned, many criticize the different accounts each of the gospels portray the events of Christ’s death and resurrection, but through using the “minimal facts” technique, a reader can gain clarity on the events. First, it is a historical fact that Christ was indeed crucified, this is even attested to in extrabiblical material of the first and second century.[39] In addition to that, the Journal of the American Medical Association put out an article detailing that they found the report of Christ’s death credible because of the account of the blood and water mixture that poured out of Jesus when he was stabbed by the soldier’s spear.[40] This mixture occurs when the lining around the heart, pericardium is ruptured, along with the heart and lungs which ensures death.[41] The Romans were aware this signified death and even today, with all the advances in medicine, this mixture is still proves death.[42] So, to say that he did not die on the cross is to contradict modern-day medicine.

Another reliable fact from the biblical witness is that Jesus was in fact buried in a tomb. This gives credence to the resurrection because it wouldn’t embolden Christ’s disciples to go around and tell everyone that Christ’s tomb was empty.[43] The reporting on the empty tomb also relies on the witness of women, the first witnesses of the empty tomb. This is important because at that time and in that society, there was a low regard for women, and if the Gospel writers wanted to tell a convincing story about Christ resurrection, they would have not included anything about women.[44]

Nevertheless, an empty tomb does not necessarily give proof of Jesus’ resurrection, but there are certain other things to take into consideration. The first is the concept of resurrection in second temple Judaism. In second temple Judaism, resurrection does not consist of a disembodied form, but instead the death of the body is reversed, meaning the whole being is restored.[45] Additionally, resurrection is an event of the future that happens at the end of history. What this means is that the disciples would not be looking for Jesus to be resurrected only days after his death, and if someone was claiming that someone had been resurrection, the religious authorities would demand the body to be produced.[46] The reader only gets the story of the Jewish leaders contriving a conspiracy to say that Christ’s body is stolen in Matthew’s gospel. When one takes this into account along with the post-mortem accounts of Christ that uphold second temple Judaism accounts of what the body looks like after resurrection, along with the fact that theories like mass hallucination doesn’t hold up because it is an individual experience, the resurrection of Jesus becomes a credible event. Therefore, Christianity would have a credible argument over Secular Humanists, to say that it is God who saves humanity because only He has produced the means to do so.

Conclusion

In closing, we shall review what has been covered. First, a summary of Secular humanism was laid out which covered its philosophies of ultimate reality, morality, and history and salvation. Next, this author evaluated Secular Humanist Morality and finding it lacked logical consistency. This was followed by this author highlighting that in light of Secular Humanity’s philosophy of morality, its view of evil and suffering lacked existential viability. Then, the Christian Worldview was presented that offered alternative explanations to the philosophies of Secular Humanism and suggested ways Christianity might have clearer answers to the ambiguous views of Humanism. Lastly, a defense of the Christian views on morality and the problem of evil was mad,e which resulted in several issues for the views of Secular Humanism, which was then followed by a detailed argument for the resurrection of Christ. These defenses not only served as proofs for the evidence of God, but also gave credibility to the Christian conviction. In reality, Christians will be defending the faith until the end of time, but with movements such as Secular Humanism, it is imperative that we defend the truths we claim as well as engage respectfully engage those who oppose us in case we might win them to Christ.





Bibliography

British Humanist Association. "A Humanist Discussion of Evil and Suffering." Humanism for Schools. n.d. http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/evil%20and%20suffering.pdf (accessed December 17, 2017).

Craig, William Lane, and Paul Kurtz. Is Goodness Without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics. Edited by Robert K Garcia, & Nathan L. King. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009.

Cross, Terry. The Church: A People of God’s Presence & Power. Cleveland, TN: Lee University Press, 2013.

Flew, Anthony, and Gary Habermas. "My Pilgrimage from Atheist to Theist." Philosophia Christi 6, no. 2 (2004): 197-211.

Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics. kindle. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

Humanists UK. Charles Darwin. Januuary 1, 2017. https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/19th-century-freethinkers/charles-darwin/ (accessed December 5, 2017).

Kurtz, Paul. In Defense of Secular Humanism. Westminster, MD: Prometheus Books, 1983.

Olson, Roger E. The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Radest, Howard B. The Devil and Secular Humanism: The Children of the Enlightenment. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 1990.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Kindle. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

—. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Wright, N.T. "Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins." Stimulus 16, no. 1 (Feb 2008): 41-50.






[1] Howard B. Radest, The Devil and Secular Humanism: The Children of the Enlightenment (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 1990). This is the thesis if of his book.


[2] Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 18.


[3] Ibid., 18-9.


[4] Ibid., 45.


[5] Ibid.


[6] Ibid., 76.


[7] Ibid., 77.


[8] Ibid., 79.


[9] (Radest 1990), 41.


[10] “Charles Darwin,” UK Humanists, accessed December 5, 2017, https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/19th-century-freethinkers/charles-darwin/


[11] Ibid.


[12] (Humanists UK 2017).


[13] Ibid.


[14] Ibid.


[15] Ibid.


[16] Is Goodness Without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics, Edited by Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009), 9.

[17] Ibid.




[18] Paul Kurtz, In Defense of Secular Humanism, (Westminster, MD: Prometheus Books, 1983), 150.


[19] Ibid.


[20] Ibid., 185.


[21] Ibid.


[22] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), kindle ed., loc. 495.


[23] (Kurtz 1983).


[24] Ibid.


[25] (Groothius 2011), loc. 3500.


[26] (Kurtz 1983), 185.


[27] “A Humanist Discussion of Evil and Suffering,” British Humanist Association, accessed December17, 2017, http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/evil%20and%20suffering.pdf.


[28] Ibid.


[29] Ibid.


[30] (Groothius 2011), 805.


[31] Terry Cross, The Church: A People of God’s Presence & Power (Cleveland, TN: Lee University Press, 2013), 56.


[32] Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 33.


[33] (Kurtz 1983), 185.


[34] (Strobel 2000), 34.


[35] Ibid.


[36] Ibid.


[37] Anthony Flew and Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion Between Anthony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosiphia Christi 6, no. 2 (2004):209.


[38]Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), Kindle ed., Loc. 1198.


[39] (Groothius 2011), 5843.


[40] Ibid., 5856.


[41] Ibid., 5869.


[42] Ibid.


[43] Ibid., 5883.


[44] Ibid.,


[45] N.T. Wright, “Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins,” Stimulus 16, no. 1 (Feb 2008): 42.


[46] (Groothius 2011), 5900.