The philosophical beliefs that support secular humanism is a presumptuous view of trusting in the success of the human species based strictly in the good will of mankind. However this faith in the human genome alone has been largely a fantasy with its repeated dark history and proliferation of evil as characteristic of the human race. Thus the ability for mankind to save himself has proven to be dismal and futile in light of modern history especially with its foundation of an atheistic worldview as a failed attempt to deify mankind as a demigod. After Word War 1 the atheistic clergy preached a creedal formula to its secular congregation with a gospel or salvation message known as the Humanist Manifesto 1 in which the savior, mankind, was to save and heal themselves which due to the atrocities of World War 2 showed such flattery to be overly optimistic and unrealistic with a need of altering its outlook as a viable answer to solve the world’s problems. Its solution was to offer a revision as the magic combination to unlock its efficacy. Yet no matter how many brilliant minds try to break the code as to endorse and subscribe to the program; its new and improved formulation could never be the “cure all” as the best lie is mostly true. Also to be able to temporarily reduce or minimize human failure is not to completely remove or eliminate its potential to once again flourish as another generation or society may further alter or reject its humanistic value. Even Immanuel Kant saw a need to stabilize morality with an unaltered standard for the survival of society as to at least act as if God (Judeo-Christian) does exist. Therefore based on Kant’s suggestion it seems that an all-sufficient moral agent, instead of the variableness of humanity, could only be the answer for mankind’s success, as human intervention regardless of endless revisions, does not prove to be the ultimate solution even if it is able to become less erroneous. With the scriptural revision of Manifesto 2 it has lacked the effectual influence to convert the masses as proving to be yet another false prophecy of revelation in failing to be the way, truth, and the life especially as the world continues to backslide in making any real progress towards with an evolutionary humanistic optimism? It is matter of blind faith to say we believe it to work because we want it to work does not necessarily mean that it will work as inconsistent with reality and thus reduced to hopeful and wishful thinking that is not rational nor reasonable in its outlook on life. Thus the myth continues as yet another authoritarian cult in preaching dogmatism to divert people with the false hopes of a utopian prospect. The secular humanists will continue to make changes as to seemingly correct their views but it doesn’t necessitate a more effectual solution in resolving the equation as still factoring in the same common denominator of mankind as promoting the wrong answer to the problem without any evidence that these figures will ever amount to a breakthrough with its human computation. That’s because this view underestimates the human potential for evil in thinking that mankind can be completely tamed and civilized through global socialization, technology and education as a means to altruistically reform as becoming self-actualized as developing a positive human potential through these humanistic self-help gurus as magically transforming this frog into a prince. Though figuratively we can dissect the frog, study and analyze it for further understanding, nonetheless it remains a frog, is a frog, is a frog. One of the foundational supporters of Manifesto 2 was Behaviorist B.F. Skinner who presented his theories as manipulating human behavior as treating people more like instinctual animals than human agents of free will by which such experimental treatment has only led to limited results instead of creating an extensive human paradise to transform society at large. In spite of all this I think it is reasonable to say that mankind has preserved some God-given potential for good as we are imprinted with His image but not to the degree by which we are totally self-sufficient in acting as both the patient and the physician simultaneously as if to always heal ourselves and even with societies best you still have the psychiatrist who must see his own shrink or a doctor that needs the assistance of another MD and so ultimately in the end I believe healing can really only occur through the outside agency and intervention of a Divine Healer aside from the temporal treatment of our colleagues. Anyway one of the hypocrisies of their belief system is based in situational ethics as being subjectively relative yet ironically they understand that this view is unlivable or unsustainable as they hold to certain absolute values through their Manifesto bible. This is because moral relativism proves to be a false dichotomy in the same way that one man’s treasure can become another man’s trash or another person’s good can become another individuals evil such as with the genocidal tendencies of ethnic cleansing in which these atheistic regimes have treated people subhumanely as just another animal. So essentially in order to hold to the position of being a pure moral relativist would mean that you couldn’t criticize others under the ideology of Nazism as forcing your own morality as judging them to be immoral and yet intuitively we know that to approve of such behavior would be problematic. Thus the subjectivism of situational ethics would only create problems, as to accommodate one person’s situation could potentiality conflict with another person’s viewpoint creating strife, not harmony, and even the utilitarian idealism of the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people can be ill-defined as potentially disastrous as misused or abused to support such matters as to repeat the modern atrocities of history or at best to silence the minority view. This outlook may at first sound good to others until you become the victim as being ran over by this “trolley problem”. Therefore moral relativism can never be a form of self or societal government which would only lead to the lawlessness of looting and rioting as mankind is not completely capable nor willing to do unto others what they want others to do unto them as people would rather do what was right in their own eyes. Thus these secular religious beliefs would be largely ineffective especially as there is no absolute authority to ground morality on which at best can only lead to a police state as a form of human government much of what we already have in place as holding people accountable otherwise it would only lead to chaos and anarchy not the prosperity of the human race and therefore you can never divorce yourself entirely from the authority factor whether it be God or human government. Moreover this open morality has selectively marginalized the main stream religion of Christianity which supports an absolute value and therefore its position is largely a reactionary and rebellious response against Christianity. Yet in spite of this anti-religious stance how ironic is it for this group to plagiarize some of the biblical precepts in adopting them as their own but just to a lesser degree as to rewrite their moral law code with a permissiveness as making themselves free from the standard of biblical moral beliefs by watering them down. At times it sounds like the Bible but without a positive reference to God as crediting secular humanists as the supreme being(s). Again the ploy of this movement is a drive to retain autonomy as avoiding an overarching Supreme Being or Judge which in part has to do with its own selfish gain as to exploit life in rebellion against a Holy God apart from merely pursuing its humanistic goals towards the betterment of mankind. This can be somewhat exampled as emphasizing their right to sexual freedom in contrast to certain biblical laws and I believe is one of the motivating factors that makes this philosophy so alluring as satisfying their sexual appetite with a moral laxity that can be defined as consensual in nature. Thus an effort has been made to usurp religion as an act of hostility in attempting to overthrow God and if you doubt this motivation than simply ask yourself if God is real would there be an immediate response to embrace Him and relinquish control of your life or would you still try to avoid Him at all costs even if it meant to deceptively devise a counterfeit worldview which is what secular humanism has done. As previously mentioned the behavioral sciences has it limitations which would also include modern scientific technology as failing to be the ultimatum as the agent of enlightenment towards the morality of human evolution as it has become more sophisticated in performing evil with the dangers of its technological advances as to bring about weapons of mass destruction more so than any other time in human history. Thus technology becomes a double-edged sword with its benefits of forwarding human progress while also having the likely potential to harm life as it is driven by fallible human beings. Consequently it has been the likes of such religious groups as Christianity that has countered such threats by creating the institutions of hospital and orphanages apart from the extermination camps and abortion clinics in serving as the hands of Christ in healing the downtrodden and broken-hearted while atheism, left to itself , has often exacerbated evil. However, in all fairness, I offer the same criticism against false religion, which in my opinion, is no different from its atheistic opponent and should be opposed and resisted according to its hate crimes. Regarding Christianity, which is the position I support, should likewise be accountable to those who are behaving unbiblically such as a direct participant of either a religious or a secular war outside of what would be defined as “just warfare”. Essentially those who take such positions may prove to be pseudo believers or at least unfaithful to their Lord. Christendom was never intended to propagate a message of malevolence with its salvific theme of “peace on earth and good will towards men” and thus there is no justification to support these aberrant beliefs and actions as conflicting with the teachings of the scripture. Thus It would behoove society to accept rather than antagonize authentic Christianity as it brings the message and power of God’s redemption of humanity in changing mankind from the inside out as evidenced by love and peace as bearing the fruits of the Kingdom of God on Earth which should be praised and not grouped in with the ills of religious abuse. Anyway I have written an article as discussing the view of violence within religion in contrast to atheism at
jesusandjews.com/wordpress/2009/10/21/religion-causes-bloodshed/
The theory of the secular humanists as outlined in article 7 presents itself as preserving the freedom and dignity of an individual, as supposedly including religious liberty but gives the impression as long as is doesn’t interfere with other people’s interests. I understand the need to honor other people choices but to say that we can’t respectfully challenge others in trying to be a positive biblical influence is an oxymoron to this group who is just as vociferous to share their meta-narrative. Religion often gets bashed for pushing its agenda while secular humanism would bulldoze others with their orthodox beliefs about what is right and wrong in opposition to their religious adversary. Thus one on hand they speak of religion favorably but secretly would rather remove or eradicate certain religions as the final solution in damning them with their bigoted views as a duplicity to their standard. In conclusion they want to blame Christianity as being authoritarians but in turn they would like to enforce their vision.
Another matter held by these political atheists, which is particular in America, is supporting a misconceived view towards the “separation of church and state” which is unconstitutional and is a complete twisting and misunderstanding of one of Thomas Jefferson letters of not allowing the state to interfere with church affairs not vise versa. Not only does it want to somehow uproot the Christian faith from American history, in association with many of the founding fathers, but to also rid its influence on modern American Society as forgetting the positive impact of christian influence on America which is plainly dishonest and a deliberate oversight. Anyway to be consistent in this matter it would only be fair to say that this should equally apply to their own ideological propaganda beliefs as they should avoid influencing the state with its prejudicial minority view. Furthermore to selectively use the word “church” in a multicultural society becomes seemingly discriminatory as well in profiling one particular faith.
Favorably speaking this movement supports such values as human rights and welfare opportunities, equality, recognition, betterment of society, individualism, satisfaction, however this positive concept does not prove to be promising as sacrificing oneself on the altar of religious atheism for the betterment of mankind contrary to the individualism of the survival of the fittest without regard for the ultimate good of society and this can be coaxed out as in Maslow’s hierarchy in that self-preservation is the king of the hill, not the community, and when it is all said and done the bottom line is that among Atheists there is really only themselves anyway and no other ultimate reality beyond me, myself and I. Finally this statement promises the world but I think it will only implode as mostly empty and shallow political words.
Also another great idea they have is expressed in article 9 as the concept of war as being an obsolete solution and yet as you can readily see there is no sign of warfare slowing down as to become extinct with its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as agents of mass destruction which have not, nor will ever, be completely eradicated, and even if they are reduced as buying into the secular humanists diplomacy it is not even realistic in lieu of constant world threats with its oppositional motif of “might makes right” as settling disputes through military presence or action as laughing in the face as to ridicule the sweet talk of negotiation and compromise. The whole dilemma to this favorable secular humanist platform is that it is structured and supported by atheism which in the past has only proven to use military force and action for the non compliant as a means to the end to oppress as to kill and maim societies the likes of which they say they really want to help.
Another credible position that they have is to overcome world poverty as establishing an economic socialism but this too has never proved to work in the past as it only ends up with two classes of individuals in dividing the wealthy/powerful from that of the lower class who have a carrot dangled in front of them to keep them motivated as trudging along but never being able to reach the prize. After all will the wealthy and powerful freely abandon their luxury for the sake of this idealism as willingly give up their riches for the poor? There is a reason why they are rich and they intend on keeping it this way as they have stacked the deck in their favor as holding all the cards. Even the efforts of sending outside assistance to these poor counties has often proved unsuccessful as these resources have been intercepted and the funds misappropriated.
Lastly another one of their popular ideas is the concept of a new world order with a global government which may prove to be no more successful than the limited efforts of the UN. Yet if mankind is the truly the measure of all things then why should we even need such governing powers as it would seem that humanity or society should naturally evolve as developing their own moral potential for excellence.
Finally even if the secular humanist was to succeed with a better model I think the concept of a utopian age apart from the future reign of Christ; is just a man-made Tower of Babel that in time will crash down as yet needing another support system to prop up its wrecked structure of belief with its replacement theology of an antichrist figure.
In conclusion secular humans as a vehicle to reach paradise would best be re-routed to the bunker of a doomsday prepper as driving this course down this human path will only lead to multiple setbacks as running out of gas, breakdowns, carjackings and finally human wreckage along this hazardous roadway in life as sadly leading to nowhere in failing to reach its final destination apart from God.
Revelation 21:1-5
21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place[a] of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,[b] and God himself will be with them as their God.[c] 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
Atheist and Agnostic Resources
English Articles on Atheism and Agnosticism
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®)
Copyright © 2001 by Crossway,
a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved.
ESV Text Edition: 2007
All marked references are attributed to:
© 2009 Josh McDowell Ministry. All rights reserved. No part of these Materials may be changed in any way or reproduced in any form without written permission from Josh McDowell Ministry, 660 International Parkway, Richardson, TX 75081. www.josh.org. +1 972 907 1000. Used by Permission.