Humanism

I had to write this paper for Psychology a.k.a. Apologetics...thought I would share it here.




Humanism presents arguably the most dangerous worldview prevalent today; away from any form of faith other than self. Such a belief brings in its wake a reliance on intellect, science, and most of all a corporate and sort of cosmic human nature as a new universal way of living in peace. Those who would pledge allegiance to “old beliefs” are met with a call to abandon doctrines that are said to have “lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of humans living in the Twentieth Century.” Mans’ “increased understanding, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood” are called as evidences of the need to redefine religion into a more functional system. Humanists, in all their realized wisdom make reference to that which they know not, for they don’t know the creator of the brotherhood of which they speak. Walk with me as I present Christ as the answer to that which all Humanists, in their own intellect, seek answers. Appropriately, we will use the Humanist Manifesto I to illustrate the err of a great many doctrine they hold as Humanists.
We begin thick in the intellectual jargon of self-existence. The Humanist holds that the universe is self-existent and not created. Plato and Aristotle both knew it foolish to even imply that the universe was self-existent. This quickly gets out of control when you start contemplating the implications of self-existence, considering that even if the universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to something – some uncaused cause. It is entirely illogical to say, or think for that matter that the universe is because of itself, and for itself. That is to say “I exist because I am, because I can.” This reasoning sounds contemplative and “deep” but proves to be confusing and circular and leaves no explanation or purpose for existence. No reason for existence yields no purpose and leaves chance as both. To exist merely per chance leaves no point to the other issues discussed in the Humanist Manifesto I, because there is no reason to value life, let alone others if we are all chance occurrences. Without purpose we find ourselves back at the beginning, which is ironic because purpose is what Humanists are trying to realize.
Did you see what happened there? We have stumbled across the truth. The truth of the Humanist situation is one of a lonely existence, self-caused, with no value except that ascribed by chance. For the sake of continuing this talk let’s give the Humanist worldview the benefit of the doubt and assume that morality enters into the picture at all. Bound by a belief in continuous natural processes which resulted in Human life, a completely organic view of all life to include people, and assertion that God is merely a side effect of individuals reacting with their native culture, Humanists put themselves in a tight spot; a spot that holds no moral certainties, where acceptable conduct and behavior are determined by their situation. That is to say morality is based on and determined by human nature. The problem is that this is simply not true. In cultures throughout the world we see evidence of a universal standard: don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, help those less fortunate, etc. What seems to be different is the application. By saying that all life is organic, the result of situation, it is an attempt to explain existence. What it does is destroys purpose, which destroys value, which makes us merely organisms as children of mere chance. If chance be our parent then all have the same value: none. The only inherent value would be to that individual, but that is only internal. Where does morality come in? Morality could be defined as right human conduct. In a situational morality nothing is right, nothing is wrong; all is acceptable if the situation permits.
“Is it wrong to kill?”
“I don’t know, I haven’t been put in that situation before.”
Wrong!
“Should I steal this food?”
“I have stolen food before but I was hungry and out of work.”
“I’m not out of work, but I am hungry.”
“Don’t look at me. I don’t know your situation.”
Strike two.
“Should I break into this house? I am cold and it is warm in there.”
Strike three. What do we have for our contestant? A 5 year stay in one of our lovely state penitentiaries; give our contestant a round of applause. Yeah, not so much. I admit that these are extreme examples but they represent the logical end of the Humanist system of morality.
There in their ideals of morality and social affluence comes the religion of the individual humanist: self. “In the 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.” By stating such things as this, one is allowed and encouraged to engage in only those activities which directly concern oneself. The humanist sees himself as tolerant and accepting, yet fails to consider that which brings even a moment’s discomfort. If you believe in the humanist doctrines why would you subject yourself to others’ needs at the expense of your own? The answer is simply that you wouldn’t unless you had a vested interest in the needs of said person. Sound familiar? This is the mantra of our society as a whole. Principles taught to us since we were barely school aged. The Golden rule is no longer “Do unto others,” instead we say “take care of number one.” Instead of “turn the other cheek” we say “strike first.” The humanist truth is that there is nothing beyond self, yet somehow they profess a commitment to “a shared life in a shared world.” In light of this contradiction we can see why humanists have revised their manifesto twice already since 1933. You see, they knew that human nature is not a nature of kindness and tolerance. In fact, if given the free reign to act according to self and for self, as the Humanist Manifesto I asserts, people have been historically observed to degenerate towards violent and destructive acts. People naturally gravitate toward self-centeredness. We need no incentive toward this, rather one in the opposite direction, toward community and fellowship. Perhaps an example based on selfless love, undeserved forgiveness, and undeniable purpose and value?
I say to the lonely, uncaused, valueless, morally conflicted humanist, there is one who has given you value, companionship, purpose, and who has once and for all defined right and wrong. What would the humanist say to the invitation of one who offers purpose outside of self, outside of others, outside of chance? Set aside the commitment to scientific myths of evolution and natural selection for only a moment to consider with no presuppositions what your own manifesto says you are open to, “humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered.” Consider a reality wherein one of ultimate importance and worth dies to save your life. What purpose would your life hold then? Knowing that even the lowliest of person would give up their life, dying in your place, would you pay attention? Consider a reality where God exists. Even knowing that He took time to create you, as evidenced by your existence in that reality, what value would that give to your life? Now consider what purpose your life would inherently hold if that same God sent His son, but more than that, Himself, to die in your place just so that He could have a relationship with you. Talk to you. Care for you in all matters. What if He valued your relationship enough to want to keep you close for all eternity? What then? You see it takes value to have value. Money does not have value by its mere existence. It’s assigned value through many different means but certainly not based on itself. Likewise, a tool is created for a purpose by a smith or toolmaker. The creator gives it a purpose for existing and a reason for being – to turn a bolt, or tighten a screw, or drive a nail. There is indeed a creator who assigns to all of us the utmost value in that He gave of Himself, out of His own value, to give us life. We have value because the only powerful and perfect God saw it wise and acceptable that we exist. So He created us, placing in us a reason for existing. Not chance put purpose.
By God’s purpose we can look at that reality and see that all would be valuable because all would be creations of God. Therein is the source of the brotherhood humanists speak of. If God values me enough to have created me, then the same value is placed in you merely by your existence. This relationship of inherited value is the active ingredient in our fellowship. I can value you equal to myself because of our existence, and I am only now opening my mind to your point of view as equal to mine. Only through God’s value placed in each of us can we begin to truly act selflessly, with less premeditation towards self. Only then can we consider others as ourselves. In considering this world of divine value, and mutual consideration based on that value we still are without purpose; without direction. The very same One who dies for you in this reality is the One who provides a meaning for life, a direction, an ultimate and divine purpose. By knowing that He died for you He gives you the purpose of telling others what He did. He tells you that because He is indeed God, His death was not just for you but for all those who would believe what you tell them when you speak of His death. He not only says to tell them but to love them as much as He did when He was willing to, and did, lay His life down in place of theirs.
I am telling the humanist of a reality that is the truth of human existence. I am telling the humanist of the truth of the world and of all time. The one who died in place of you, me, truly all, is Jesus Christ. He gives to all the value given Him by God, as God. He is God, and as God Jesus nailed Himself to a piece of wood and died because He valued us so much that it was worth His death.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” John 3:16.
We were so valuable to Him that He was willing to die to have a relationship with us. It is in this seeming contradiction that we have the very definition of brotherhood: love. It took unspeakable love for Christ to do that. Because he loved us, even to death, we are compelled to love each other if we accept that He did in-fact die. A wonderful gift comes if we are willing to accept that truth.
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9
Saved from what? Saved from eternity apart from the one who gives value and purpose.
So the Humanist is left with a decision between solitude and brotherhood, between pointlessness and divine purpose, between selfishness and love. The humanist must truly choose between life and death.




Just my thoughts on the relativistic crap people are spouting today. Hope you enjoyed.