CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Apologetics Press, Inc. 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 U.S.A.

334/272-8558 800/234-8558 www.ApologeticsPress.org Copyright © Apologetics Press All rights reserved. This document may be printed or stored on computer media, on the conditio n that it will not be republished in print, on-line (including reposting on any personal Web sites, cor- porate Web sites, organizational Web sites, electronic bulletin boards, etc.), or on computer media, and will not be used for any commercial purposes. Further, it must be copied with source statements (publisher, author, title, bibliographic references, etc.), and must include this paragraph granting limite d rights for copying and reproduction, along with the name and address of the publisher and owner o f these rights, as listed below.

Except for those exclusions mentioned above, and brief quotations i n articles or critical reviews, or distribution for educationalpurposes (including students in classes), no part of this document may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher. CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. INTRODUCTION cAbsolute truth belongs only to one class of humans 4the class of absolute fools. d These are the piercing words of Ashley Montagu, the famous evolutionist/humanist of Princeton University ... more. less.

(1981, p. 4- C ). Dr. Montagu wanted to make it clear that, at best, truth is relative 4and anyone who states differently is to be categorized as a fool. Others have joined Dr. Montagu in this kind of thinking. Sir Julian Huxley, for instance, said: cWe must now be prepared to abandon the god hypothesis and its corollaries like divine revelation or unchanging truths, and to change over from a supernatural to a naturalistic view of human destiny d (1965, p. 101). Why do men make such statements? The answer, it seems, lies in an ever-increasing attitude of csupreme self-sufficiency d 4a burning desire to ccut themselves loose from the apron strings of God d as it were. George Gaylord Simpson, the famous paleontologist of Harvard, wrote: Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material pro- cess with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny (1953, p. 155). Richard Leakey echoed those same sentiments. Unquestionably mankind is special, and in many ways, too&. There is now a critical need for a deep awareness that, no matter how special we are as an animal, we are still part of the greater balance of nature.& During that relatively brief span evolutionary pressures forged a brain capable of profound understanding of matters animate and inanimate: the fruits of intellectual and technological endeav- our in this latter quarter of the 20 th century give us just an inkling of what the human mind can achieve. The potential is enormous, almost infinite. We can, if we so choose, do virtually anything (1977, p. 256; first emp. in orig.; latter emp. added). But is that the only (or even the major) reason for this cdebunking of God d in favor of a purely human vantage point? No. It is not just that man is convinced he can make it on his own, although that in itself would be bad enough. Rather, it is the attitude of which the apostle Paul spoke in Ro- mans 1:28 as he discussed those who crefused to have God in their knowledge. d It has to do with those who have cexchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather - 2 - than the Creator d (Romans 1:25). It is a willful determination on the part of man not to have God in his mind or in his life, and instead to replace Him with something 4anything 4non-divine and non- supernatural. It is a concerted effort to escape any ultimate responsibility, and instead to find a way to allow each person to cdo his own thing. d In an article titled cConfessions of a Professed Atheist, d Aldous Huxley addressed this very point. I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.& The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.& For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19). Statements like these show the absolute determination of some to live without God, no matter what the cost. It is difficult not to be reminded of the kind of people of whom Paul spoke in Ephesians 2:11-13 who found themselves in the position of chaving no hope, and without God in the world. d Such thinking is the warped product of what has been called cthe void of humanism d (see Stearsman, 1981, 25[12]:490-491). THE TENETS OF HUMANISM There is nothing left to the imagination when it comes to the tenets of humanism. This system of thought has been so well-defined and so oft 9 discussed that it is an easy matter to understand its goals, aims, objectives, and teachings. In 1933, and again forty years later in 1973, humanists set forth their credo in Humanist Manifesto I and Humanist Manifesto II . Humanism is not just a system of thought that stresses the importance of humankind. Rather, humanism is a subtle, disarming, and sophisticated way of saying catheism. d The Humanist Manifesto II makes that clear: cAs nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity. ...humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No de- ity will save us; we must save ourselves d (1973, p. 16). The Humanist Manifesto I is composed of fifteen theses covering such areas as ethics, religion, man 9s origin and destiny, etc. It was signed by such men as R. Lester Mondale, brother of former United States Vice-President Walter Mondale, and American educator John Dewey, among others. - 3 - Humanist Manifesto II contains seventeen theses grouped under five major headings: Religion, Eth- ics, Individual, Democratic Society, and World Community. It was signed by a number of influential people from almost every walk of life, including, among others, Linus Pauling, Issac Asimov, Francis Crick, Julian Huxley, Anthony Flew, Corliss Lamont, and Kai Nielsen. In the preface, the proponents stated: cAs in 1933, humanist still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer- healing God, assumed to love and care for persons,...is an unproved and outmoded faith d (1973, p. 13). Humanists have ctaken aim d at God, religion, the supernatural, and the Gospel message, and in- tend to cshoot to kill. d Consider, for example, this statement from Kai Nielsen, humanist philosopher and former editor of The Humanist magazine. In cultures such as ours, religion is very often an alien form of life to intellectuals. Living as we do in a post-enlightenment era, it is difficult for us to take religion seriously. The very concept seems fan- tastic to us&that people in our age can believe that they have had a personal encounter with God, that they could believe that they have experienced conversion through a cmystical experience of God, d so that they are born again in the Holy Spirit, is something that attests to human irrationality and a lack of sense of reality (1977, p. 46). The message is clear. Those people who accept God, His Son, His Word, and His salvation are cout of touch with reality, d cirrational, d and cunreasonable. d There is no misunderstanding human- ism, what it teaches, or what it hopes to accomplish. The Humanist Manifesto II is quite specific on a number of important points. Consider, for example, the humanists 9 comments on religion. We believe, however, that traditional or dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.& We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.& Promises of salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social in- justices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the cghost in the machine d and the cseparable soul. d Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolu- tionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism trans- acting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body (1973, pp. 15-17). Consider also these comments on the subject of ethics. ...we affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational , needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human needs and in- terest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and - 4 - develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life 9s enrichment despite debasing forces.... Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natu- ral and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems (1973, pp. 17-18; emp. in orig.). Lastly, consider these comments on csexual freedom. d In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and di- vorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual ex- pression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consent- ing adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered cevil. d Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. 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. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not ex- ploited as sexual objects and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect and honesty in interpersonal rela- tions are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity (1973, pp. 18-19; emp. in orig.). These, in summary, are the tenets of humanism. Promises of salvation are cillusory and harm- ful, d ethics is csituational, d and sexual activity between cconsenting adults d is acceptable no matter who or what is involved. Sounds like cvice is nice d propaganda, doesn 9t it? Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and even what some call the clast taboo d 4incest 4are acceptable according to hu- manism. As one author put it: cWhile humanity did not arise from the beasts, Humanism certainly stoops to their level d (Jones, 1981, 98[20]:309). Many people simply are not aware that humanism advocates such things. Furthermore, many are not aware that humanism has its own systems of cosmology, soteriology, ethics, and even eschatol- ogy 4all of which stand in direct opposition to the Bible. What, then, should be the Christian 9s re- sponse to such teachings? CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM It is important to understand that a Christian cannot be a humanist. There are those who claim to be cChristian humanists d or creligious humanists. d But humanism and Christianity are not compati- ble. Paul Kurtz, former editor of The Humanist , addressed the subject of cChristian humanism d when he observed: cHumanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God - 5 - as the source and Creator of the universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated be- lievers d (1973, p. 177). Humanist writer Corliss Lamont even went so far as to state: cPassing to the New Testament, we see plainly that its theology, taken literally, is totally alien to the Humanist view- point d (1977, p. 50). Humanism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed systems. Humanism states that matter is eternal, that there is no God, that man and his environment are the result of evolu- tionary forces, that ethics is situational, that no one can possess absolute truth, that there is no life af- ter death, that views of salvation are illusory and harmful, that man is the most important thing in the Universe, that man has no soul, that there is no heaven or hell, and so on. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches the exact opposite of these things. The Bible speaks often of an eternal God, man 9s immortal soul, heaven, hell, a promised and planned salvation, the absolute nature of Truth, morals based on an objective standard, etc. Humanists have failed to comprehend one of the greatest of all truths 4that the cfear of the Lord d is both cthe beginning of knowledge d and cthe beginning of wisdom d (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10). True wisdom is in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30). He alone is the way, the Truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). It is His Truth that will make us free (John 8:32) and protect us from the cphilosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men d that is able to destroy us (Colossians 2:8). It is the Christian system that places man in his proper place in the Universe 4as a specially cre- ated being (Genesis 1:26-27) made a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:4-5). Man is not cup from the slime d as humanism advocates, but instead is cdown from heaven. d In addition, Christianity cor- rectly teaches that ethics is not situational, but instead always must be based on God 9s Word since in that Word we find call things that pertain unto life and godliness d (2 Peter 1:3). Far from being situ- ational, the ethical system of the Bible is governed by revelation provided by the Creator. Prohibitions against many of the things that humanism advocates (divorce, homosexuality, extra-marital and pre- - 6 - marital sexual activity, etc.) are frequent in the divinely inspired text (1 Corinthians 6:9-19; Romans 1:26-32; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 19:9; Genesis 2:24; etc.). The wisdom that man values so highly, God often sets at nought (1 Corinthians 3:19-21; 2:6; 1:19-21). The Bible urges us to pray often (1 Thessalonians 5:17), with the assurance that we will be heard by our God (Matthew 7:7-8). Humanism denies these things. The Bible warns us against cfriendship with the world which is enmity with God d (James 4:4) and promises us instead the cabundant life d (John 10:10) through Christ. Jesus Himself promised eternal life to those who were faithful to God (John 17:3; Matthew 10:32-33; John 14:1-3,23-24). CONCLUSION Why do we find the world in the state it is today? Tim LaHaye, in his book, The Battle for the Mind , suggested: cOur present society is in a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Ameri- cans love degeneracy, but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the influence of the church d (1980, p. 189). Christ said: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thence- forth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:13-16). God 9s people are to uphold that which is right and oppose that which is wrong. In so doing, we set an example for all around us to see. We must oppose humanism because its teachings are contrary to the teachings of God 9s Word. We must come to understand, and help others to understand, the folly of human cwisdom d such as is found in humanism. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and discernment of the discerning will I bring to naught. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of the world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God 9s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe (1 Corinthians 1:19-21). Human wisdom leads away from God if it is not founded on, guarded by, and subject to biblical revelation. Human wisdom is at war with God (Romans 8:7) and is foolishness as far as He is con- cerned (1 Corinthians 3:19-20). Christians must reject humanism, and help others to do the same. - 7 - REFERENCES Humanist Manifestos I & II (1933/1973), (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus). Huxley, Aldous (1966), cConfessions of a Professed Atheist, d Report: Perspective on the News . Huxley, Julian (1965), Fortune Magazine , February. Jones, Shawn (1981), cThe Most Dangerous Religion in the World, d Firm Foundation , 98[20]:309, May 19. Kurtz, Paul (1973), The Humanist Alternative (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus). LaHaye, Tim (1980), The Battle for the Mind (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell). Lamont, Corliss (1977), The Philosophy of Humanism (New York: Unger). Leakey, Richard (1977), Origins (New York: E.P. Dutton). Montagu, Ashley (1981), Interview in The Atlanta Journal and Constitution , July 26, p. 4-C. Nielsen, Kai (1977), cReligiosity and Powerlessness: Part III of 8The Resurgence of Fundamentalism 9, d The Humanist , 37:46, May-June. Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Stearsman, Jackie M. (1981), cThe Void of Humanism, d Christian Bible Teacher , 25[12]:490-491, December.

less