Secular Humanism

Apologetics Application Paper: Secular Humanism
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. – The First Commandment
Thou shalt have no gods. – Secular Humanists

Although the epigraphs above do not reflect the entire arguments in support of their respective oppositional positions, they do capture the essence of the specific argument between Christians and secular humanists concerning the centrality of religious beliefs for the human condition. Indeed, since time immemorial, humankind has sought spiritual solace, guidance and redemption but it has only been relatively recently that this fundamental worldview has been challenged by human secularism which holds that there is no god and that human beings possess the natural gifts to manage their affairs just fine, thank you. Human secularism gained significant impetus as a result of innovations in scientific and medical technologies that have further reinforced the notion that people can take care of themselves without a deity – benevolent or otherwise – watching over them.

[footnoteRef:2] Not surprisingly, the diametrically opposed views of Christianity and human secularism have been the source of significant controversy in recent years, with each school of thought vigorously defending their respective positions by citing relevant evidence and brooking no disagreements. Against this backdrop, developing a better understanding of these two worldviews has assumed new importance and relevance today. To this end, this paper provides a summary and evaluation of the human secularist worldview, followed by a corresponding evaluation and defense of Christianity. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning human secularism are provided in the paper’s conclusion. [2: Alan T. Price (2007, Spring), ‘Secular Humanism vs. Religion? The Liberal Democratic Education Tradition and the Battle over Vouchers in the USA.’ Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, p. 37.]

As the term connotes, the source of authority for the secularist humanist worldview is the individual human being, and the source of morality is judged by the consequence of individual actions based on experience and empirical observations. For example, one secular humanist concedes that, “It's true that secular humanism says the morality of actions should be judged by their consequences in this world. Secular humanists plead guilty as charged to these and many other claims that show the genuine and radical differences between humanism and revealed religion.”[footnoteRef:3] [3: Matt Cherry and Mollen Matsumuru (1997, Winter), “10 Myths about Secular Humanism.” Free Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 26.]

While religious-minded individuals may have trouble accepting this strict reliance on human authority rather than a Supreme Being, secular humanists not only embrace the notion but publicize and celebrate it as well in an effort to dispel the numerous concomitant misconceptions that have emerged in response to the growth of the secular humanism movement. Indeed, some secular humanists argue that they have been targeted by the followers of various religious faiths as so many unrepentant apostates who are intent on attacking their belief systems. For example, Cherry emphasizes that, “There is often an attempt to demonize secular humanists. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. For many religious conservatives, secular humanism is that devil.”[footnoteRef:4] [4: Cherry and Matsumuru (1997), p. 26.]

Given the heated rhetoric that has characterized the debate in the past, many modern observers may have the wrong impression about the tenets of secular humanism. The Council for Secular Humanism simply defines this worldview as being “comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity [and] thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.”[footnoteRef:5] Moreover, despite the arguments that are discussed further below, many secular humanists both resent and reject the notion that their worldview rises to the level of an organized religion. In fact, the distinction is sufficiently important to many secular humanists that a great deal of scholarship has been devoted to this specific issue.[footnoteRef:6] In this regard, the Council for Secular Humanism maintains that, “Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.”[footnoteRef:7] [5: ‘What is secular humanism?’ (2018). Council for Secular Humanism. [online] https://secular humanism.org/index.php/3260, p. 4.] [6: Robert M. Price (2002, Summer), ‘Religious and Secular Humanism: What's the Difference?’ Free Inquiry, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 47.] [7: ‘What is secular humanism?,’ p. 5.]

Other authorities, however, argue that the secular humanism worldview includes many, if not all, of the elements needed to qualify as a religion. The controversy over the definition of secular humanism as a religion, though, does not detract or affect its underlying beliefs which are firmly grounded in empirical observations and experience. For instance, Flynn maintains that, “Secular humanism propounds a rational ethics based on human experience.”[footnoteRef:8] The secular humanism worldview also includes a means for evaluating the ethnicity of choices that are made by people that are based on such experiential outcomes as guided by rationality and drawing on scientific principles and knowledge. In this regard, according to Flynn, “[Secular humanism] is consequentialist: ethical choices are judged by their results. Secular humanist ethics appeals [sic] to science, reason, and experience to justify its ethical principles.”[footnoteRef:9] [8: Tom Flynn (2017). ‘Secular humanism’s unique selling proposition.’ Council for Secular Humanism. < https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/13#6>.] [9: Flynn (2017), p. 5.]

Taken together, these attempts to provide some definitional clarity concerning secular humanism make it clear that proponents reject the worldviews held by those who believe in a higher power, but these attempts break down when it comes to the tenet of holding no belief in anything that “transcends ordinary experience.” In fact, it is reasonable to suggest that even the most ardent secular humanists have experienced events in their lives that transcend their ordinary experiences and which defy ready explanation, but this has not stopped secular humanists from trying. For example, the Council for Secular Humanism defends the worldview by suggesting that everyone is god and it is easy to understand the appeal of this type of proposition to people who are desperately searching for answers to the overarching questions in their lives. According to the Council, “As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.”[footnoteRef:10] While this characterization serves to highlight the source of secular humanism’s moral authority, these observations also underscore its weaknesses as discussed further below. [10: ‘What is secular humanism?,’ p. 5.]

As discussed further below, the secular humanist worldview fails to provide a rational, livable, comprehensive system for several reasons, including most especially its reliance on highly fallible human judgments and decision making to evaluate the morality of actions. Moreover, secular humanism even holds that the natural laws that have been identified and codified by humankind over the millennia take precedence over any other source of moral authority. In this regard, Flynn emphasizes that, “Secular humanists argue that all human societies, even deeply religious ones, invariably construct consensus moralities on consequentialist principles. Millennia of human experience have given rise to a core of ‘common moral decencies’ shared by almost all.”[footnoteRef:11] The historical record, however, has demonstrated time and again that the “common moral decencies shared by almost all” may exist, but they are not sufficiently authoritative to prevent people from violating them. [11: Flynn (2017), p. 6.]

In many ways, as a worldview, secular humanism also fails as a religion because it is does not include all of the elements of a “set of beliefs or system of thought that contains a theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, politics, law and history.”[footnoteRef:12] Secular humanism clearly does not rise to the level of a religion for a number of reasons. While secular humanists espouse a nebulous ethical doctrine and draw on the various sciences listed above (as well as others),[footnoteRef:13] secular humanism as a worldview cannot be regarded as a religion because it fails to include the fundamental concepts of transcendence, the existence of supernatural explanations for otherwise seemingly natural events, or the need for subjugation to a quid pro quo relationship with one or more higher powers. For example, according to the legal definition, a religion is “man’s relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submissions to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense, religion includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, without future rewards and punishments.”[footnoteRef:14] In sum, secular humanism advocates a wholesale rejection of the salvation that is readily available to all and these issues are discussed below. [12: David A. Noebel (1996, Fall), ‘The Religion of Secular Humanism.’ Free Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 7.] [13: Andrew Montano (2018), ‘Worldview in Question: Secular Humanism.’ http://andrew montano.net/humanism/.] [14: Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., p. 1292.]

Some of the most common arguments in support of the existence of God include the fact that countless people have reported religious experiences with the Creator as well as those advanced by intelligence designers who suggest that this proof can be found simply by simply looking around. The fact that no intelligent life has been located anywhere else in the vast universe suggests that the origins of humankind are no accident, but are rather the work of an omnipotent Creator who had a definite plan for His creation in mind. Furthermore, in sharp contrast to the highly individualized approach to arriving at the objective truth that is used by most secular humanists, Christians generally agree on a universal set of moral truths in the form of the Ten Commandments that were delivered by the Almighty himself through Moses on Mount Sinai.

Despite the fact that no concrete proof can be provided that positively proves the existence or nonexistence of God, a final defense of Christianity versus human secularism concerns the universality of religion in the human condition. For instance, according to one theologian, “Although most researchers seem to assume that secularism separated from religion or grew out of it, this does not mean that we are facing two distinct entities. The idea of a radical secularism—that is, a religion-free culture—is an illusion.”[footnoteRef:18] While secular humanists may reject the notion, the fact remains that humans are naturally hard-wired to have an innate need to commune with their Creator, a need that will continue to manifests itself irrespective of the arguments advanced by secular humanism. In this regard, Beh-Yehuda concludes that, “Searching for meaning and forging identities means that holiness—or some form of it—will probably always play a part in human cultures, even in the most secularized ones (which may develop advanced forms of civil religions), a situation that has profound implications for the secular-religious or theocrat–democrat conflict.”[footnoteRef:19] [18: Ben Yehuda Nachman (2010), Theocratic Democracy: The Social Construction of Religious and Secular Extremism. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 7.] [19: Nachman (2010), p. 7.]

. The research showed that followers of the secular humanism worldview reject any supernatural or transcendental explanation for the natural environment and events that surround them, despite the enormity of the infinite mysteries in the universe that defy explanation. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude that some secular humanists are so convinced of the legitimacy of their beliefs that they would remain unconvinced of the authenticity of Christianity even if they shook hands with the Son of Man. Certainly, an element of faith is an essential ingredient in any belief system, but the faith that secular humanists place in the ability of mere people to adequately cope with the exigencies of the human condition is not only misplaced, it is spurious and uninformed from the outset. Indeed, as the Savior made clear during his first coming, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,”[footnoteRef:20] and secular humanists are missing out on the salvation and redemption that could make their lives complete and everlasting. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the last thought that secular humanists have on their deathbeds is, “I hope I was right – but what if I was wrong?” [20: John 14:6]