Critique Two - Part One - A Common Thread

After having dealt with Atheism, as presented by Mr. Bertrand Russell, hopefully in a way that respectfully pointed out some shortcomings in that worldview, I am now going to attempt a critical response to another view on things that is probably more pervasive in contemporary culture, Secular Humanism. The reading on which i'll be commenting is by Mr. Paul Kurtz and is entitled "A Secular Humanist Declaration". Mr. Kurtz provides ten points in defense of his ideals, which I will attempt to address individually in upcoming posts. In this post, i'll use Mr. Kurtz's definition of secular humanism, address some of the introductory comments in the work at hand, and then mention a common thread that seems likely to be woven through the secular humanist position.

Secular humanism is defined by Mr. Kurtz on the Council for Secular Humanism (of which Mr. Kurtz in the founder and chair emeritas) website as, "...a comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance incorporating a naturalistic philosophy, a cosmic outlook rooted in science and a consequentialist ethical system." We will look at each of these in more detail in the course of study, but what we can look for as we go is a presentation and defense of a naturalistic, scientific and consequentialist position that will attempt to consistantly address the same issues for which religion purports to have answers. I will be giving some reasons I feel the secular humanist position is deficient and where the Biblical-Christian worldview does a better job in providing cogent, comprehensive and consistant answers.

In his introduction, Mr. Kurtz goes to some effort to present secular humanism as a strong force in contemporary culture and thought forms. His main emphasis is to establish secular humanism as a lifestance that has led to the "...improvement of the human condition..." has "...had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world..." and in "...making the good life possible for more and more people..." Mr. Kurtz also states that secular humanism has no dogma or creed, no "statement of faith" no solid, immovable position on which all members stand, but rather is based on a "...loose consensus with respect to several positions". Finally, Mr. Kurtz is clear in stating that the form of secular humanism that he intends to defend is one that is "...explicitly comitted to democracy." Although not defined, it is assumed that by democracy Mr. Kurtz agrees with Webster's definition:

government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled; majority rule

I would like to make clear before beginning that I do not intend to defend the Christian religion and how the church has addressed issues throughout history. Instead I hope to present Jesus Christ and His teachings, in the context of the whole of Scripture. I will do my best to present the Secular Humanist position correctly and simply respond to the points set forth in the article at hand, as this is how I would hope anyone reading these posts would do for me. It is quite important that it be remembered that we never judge a philosophy or worldview by its abuses, so characterizing an entire religion and all people who claim allegience to a system of belief as having the same views as those who would abuse and pervert that view would be unprofitable. I will attempt therefore to look at the ideas presented on their truthfullness and merit and nothing else.

With that preface, I would like to end this post with a common thread I believe will be woven throughout the presentation. This common thread has to do with two fundamental systems espoused and their difference to Biblical Christianity. These two fundamental systems are egalitarianism and elitism. Egalitarianism being a view of equality and elitism being a view of hierarchy or class or position. From the introductory statements of the Secular Humanist Declaration it is apparent that it is believed that ideas are all equal, that no one's idea of how things should be is any better than anyone else's. This is highlighted by the statements about how secular humanism is no dogma or creed and has only loose consensus on some points. It is also apparent that there is an elitism of people. A purely and staunch democratic position as well as the elevation of intellect, science and a determined ethical system puts people in the position of power (namely to decide right and wrong, good and bad, etc.). So, Secular Humanism then espouses an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. We will see this sustained as we go.

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, presents an egalitarianism of people and an elitism of ideas. All men are created in the image of God and are therefore on equal ground, whereas the idea of right and wrong, good and bad, is transcendent and immovable by human will, decision or fancy. These differences will be addressed in future posts and I look forward to exploring some of the outworkings and practical applicaitons of the Secular Humanist position. Until next time...