Home | About Us | Our Mission | Links | Lets GEL | Bookstore
A Rebuttal to the Humanist Manifestos
Part Seven
6. Humanity as a Whole
The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:
In Closing: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world. We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want - a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be. Let us work together for a humane world by means commensurate with humane ends. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome. Let us call for an end to terror and hatred. We will survive and prosper only in a world of shared humane values. We can initiate new directions for humankind; ancient rivalries can be superseded by broad-based cooperative efforts. The commitment to tolerance, understanding, and peaceful negotiation does not necessitate acquiescence to the status quo nor the damming up of dynamic and revolutionary forces. The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless nonviolent adjustments. But this entails the willingness to step forward onto new and expanding plateaus. At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. It is a classical vision; we can now give it new vitality. Humanism thus interpreted is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead."
I have a few questions about this closing paragraph:
1. Does the plea that "parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended" imply that the "men and women of goodwill" from the preceding sentence cannot include those who practice traditional religions?
2. Does the plea to "urge recognition of the common humanity of all people" include unborn babies?
3. What does it mean to be "responsible for what we are or will be"? Will it be possible to eliminate all undesirable situations which are beyond our control, to foresee all mitigating circumstances which could cause unhappiness or discomfort, in order to maximize our full potential as individuals and societies? If so, by whose standards will this effort be based upon? How can any standard exist when we must insist upon "situational ethics" and "maximum individual autonomy?" Will the new standards exclude Christian morals and interpretations?
4. It makes no sense to me to state that "Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome." If the differences between these belief systems are indeed overcome, then they cease to exist as belief systems. Do the humanists really mean that these ideologies themselves should be eliminated? What ideology will replace them?
5. How exactly do the "narrow allegiances of [the] church" (refer to my definition of "church" in the endnotes) endanger "human potentiality"? It is exactly the message of the Christian bible that maximizes individual worth, teaches mankind how to live in harmony with one another, teaches individuals to place the needs of others first and encourages each of us toward excellence in all that we do and say.
6. If we truly "believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead," then how can we explain existing wars, murders, violence, terrorism, hatred, moral corruption, and societal decay? Does humankind really possess this type of potential? If so, what has prevented us from attaining this potential thus far? What will help us change our selfish ways and attain this potential in the future? If we possess the goodwill to implement this "world community" with fairness, "a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared," if we possess the "intelligence...and cooperative skill" to bring it to pass, why have we not done it yet? What is the missing catalyst?
Conclusion
These questions are not merely nitpicking gripes. They represent serious attempts to understand the motivation behind the message of humanism, a message which appears flawed and overly optimistic considering what we ought to understand about the naturally selfish nature of the human spirit. It is not effective to insist that we ought to do this or that for the good of the world community. There is very little in the Manifestos which describes how we might affect the desired changes in human society. The fact remains that humans are selfish, as evidenced by the humanists' insistence on "maximum individual autonomy" and "situational ethics," in themselves self-centered philosophies which betray undeniable facts about human nature. "I ought to be free to make myself happy in my own way" may sound like a noble goal, but it is supremely narcissistic and not at all concerned with the good of the "world community." Self service and world community very often manifest themselves as contradictory worldviews.
The message of true humanism - not the secular humanism of the Manifestos but the type taught in the bible - is "others first." Love is only meaningful when it puts the self last in service to those around us. True love is not the feeling of happiness pursued by the humanists, not a goal to be obtained for the good of one's self; true love is a decision. It is a decision to serve others as Christ serves his church, because only in serving others can we find the true happiness God wants us to have. This sounds like an oxymoron to those who possess the modern paradigm of self-service, but when happiness is pursued only for the benefit of self, the rights of others will somehow, eventually, be violated, because the goals of others and their definition of "happiness" must always be at least slightly different than one's own. Violating the rights of others is impossible if it is their rights we are primarily concerned with.
I would encourage the humanists to redefine their philosophy in light of the biblical definition of humanity, its purpose, and its ultimate destiny. There is much to be admired in the words they have presented to us, and Christians actually hold much in common with the humanist philosophy. However, with all their similarities, the two viewpoints taken wholly are on quite opposite sides of the fence; humanism centers on the self, as evidenced by this quote from "THIRD":
"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."
Christianity, however, centers first on Christ and the sacrifice he made for humankind, then on those around us who need his love, grace and mercy. The fifth, sixth and seventh chapters of the book of Matthew (the Sermon on the Mount) give a good overview of this.
These two viewpoints simply cannot be reconciled with each other since they are build on radically different foundations.
If humanists would realize that many of their criticisms of religion do not apply to the proper practice of Christianity, perhaps the Christian message would be palatable to them. For instance, they state in FIRST that "Traditional religions often...inhibit humans from helping themselves," yet the bible is full of examples of bravery in the face of opposition, such as Moses first approaching Pharoah, or Christ facing crucifixion. They state that "Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others," yet the primary message in Christianity is to serve others. "Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence... fear rather than courage," yet Christ stood alone, as did Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, most of the Apostles, and innumerable Christian martyrs since. Humanists are free to criticize religions as much as they desire, but they must first understand that most of their criticisms do not apply to biblical Christianity. Christians have done much to blacken their own eyes, and much of what is done today in the name of Christ is surely reprehensible to the God we serve, but the real thing, as portrayed by Christ himself, ought to be the standard by which the philosophy is judged.
Humanism ought to understand what it means to be misunderstood. In A Secular Humanist Declaration, they state that humanism has been labeled as "morally corrupting" and is considered a dangerous philosophy by some. Their response:
"We who support democratic secular humanism deny such charges, which are based upon misunderstanding and misinterpretation, and we seek to outline a set of principles that most of us share."
This sheds light on the desire of humanists to clarify their philosophy in the public eye, and I would encourage them to extend the same courtesy to biblical Christianity, because based on their critiques of religions, it is clear that properly practiced Christianity may be quite appealing to the typical secular humanist, provided he or she can put aside any pre-conceived notions about the non-existence of God. If their atheism is an outgrowth of the humanist ideal, it may be easier for them to put aside the secular humanist dogma long enough to consider what Christ has to offer. If, on the other hand, they have embraced secular humanism because they were first atheists, and humanism offered religious solace without the need for God, then it may be more difficult to further explore biblical Christianity.
I do not criticize individual humanists, but instead love them and am concerned for them. I trust that this document will be received in the spirit it was intended; as a concerned rebuttal to an idea I see as unachievable, since it is based on faulty logic and unrealistic expectations about the nature of the human heart. I admire the desire expressed in the Manifestos for universal peace, yet I must insist that only the God who created the cosmos can provide it. There is nothing to lose from dedicating one's life to the pursuit of this loving and omnipotent Creator. All of the basic goals of the religious or secular humanist are common - peace, love, joy, happiness - but are only attainable through the One who created peace, love, joy and happiness. It really is a wonderful journey.
To know Christ, to be forgiven of one's faults and shortcomings, is not the limiting, degrading, harmful experience humanists portray. Christianity does not "deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities." Rather, it maximizes human potentiality. An unfathomable Intelligence created our psyches, so it is natural that He wishes to maximize the potential and beauty of the human spirit. The assumption that "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful" which "distract[s] humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices" is simply wrong when applied to Christianity. With sadness I readily agree that bondage, legalism and abuse are common themes in many religions, as well as in many improperly motivated Christian churches, but Christianity, properly practiced as outlined by the life of Jesus Christ himself, must not be numbered among them.
I want to encourage intelligent responses to this document from the humanist camp, so I may more fully understand their philosophies. I also want to encourage humanists to consider biblical Christianity as a way to achieve many of the goals stated in their manifestos. The God of the bible specializes in maximizing human potential. A relationship with him is a good fit for those who are seeking to optimize the relationships between individuals human beings, between societies, and between us and our Creator.NOTES
1. The term Church does not denote a group of people in a particular building, but the body of those worldwide who believe in absolute biblical authority. Admittedly and unfortunately, the expression of the Christian faith through imperfect humans is often far from the ideal presented in the bible, which is perhaps why humanists desire an alternative, but the expression of biblical Christianity is what must be used as its definition, not necessarily the way the faith is presented through the lives of Christians. This may seem to support the accusation of hypocrisy coming from many humanists, but it is consistent with the true nature of the Christian message; that Christ died to save sinners, that His free gift of grace is available to all who care to accept it, and that He continues to work in and through believers to perfect them and to prepare them for eternal life with Him.
Home | About Us | Our Mission | Links | Lets GEL | Bookstore