Critique Two - Part Two - Imprisoned by "Freedom"

'Free Inquiry' is the first proposition elucidated in the loose consensus Decalogue of secular humanists. Mr. Kurtz begins with the following: "We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. In the past, such tyrannies have been directed by churches and states attempting to enforce the edicts of religious bigots..." and he continues with "...The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result."

There are several things i'd like to say about the statements of Mr. Kurtz with regard to free inquiry. Firstly, is that the secular humanist position claims to be the champion of a freedom of thought while at the same time denouncing any ideas that include any form of supernatural explanatory phenomena. Mr. Kurtz began his declaration by emphatically positing a secular humanist position that "...is opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values ..." Clearly this is a position in contradiction. In point of fact, the secular humanist position is exclusivistic in that it particularly and specifically excludes any position that includes the supernatural. In other words, everyone is free to inquire of any thought form and look to any position for explanation, except a religious one. In this way, secular humanism "shackles free thought."

Secondly, we must recognize that truth by definition is exclusive. The law of non-contradiction holds. In other words, something cannot be both 'A' and 'non-A'. Mr. Kurtz has stated that for secular humanists, "...the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result." This means that the search is as important as finding the truth. This position is also unsustainable. Once the truth is found, the search is over; in fact the very point of the search is to find the truth. Furthermore, once the truth is found everything opposite to the truth is untrue and must be discarded. For the secular humanist the perfect society and system of thought is ever seeking but never finding, to find is to fail. If a secular humanist were to ever find the truth and stand firm saying something like "killing innocent people is wrong at all times, in all places, in all circumstances, no matter what anyone else thinks", then he or she would commit the cardinal sin and be excommunicated for failing to permit free inquiry; they would be excluded for being exclusive. It is a self-destructive position that cannot be lived out.

This same point can be stated in a different way. One gets the feeling in the exposition of free inquiry and the system put forth that elevates the egalitarianism of ideas, or free inquiry, or looking at every idea as they are equally valid, that Mr. Kurtz believes everyone should think this way. As a committed Christian that espouses the Biblical-Christian world and life view and presents Christs statement that "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me", I would fall into the category of a religious bigot that proposes a tyranny over the mind of man. A secular humanist would no doubt denounce my position and attempt to persuade me to drop my 'religious bigotry' and adopt the secular humanist position of tolerance and freedom. But how is that attempt to separate me from my beliefs tolerant? Aren't secular humanists in fact claiming themselves to have 'the only way', albeit that everyone should be tolerant of all ideas and not purport to have the answer? Again, this is a contradictory position. As soon as the secular humanist states that belief in the supernatural should be opposed, they cease to be inclusive of all ideas.

Finally, i'd like to reiterate my concern regarding systems of thought from the last posting, because it shows up front and center in the forum of 'Free Inquiry'. Secular humanists propose a system of an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people. They have clearly stated in this first proposition that all ideas should be equally considered, free from any opposition. However, in societal relations some group will have to decide which idea to incorporate and ultimately press on its citizens. We will speak on this again in a later post, but in the end what will happen is that some group of people will decide which set of ideas all people will follow. The logical conclusion of the secular humanist position is totalitarianism (an elite group dictating for all the rest).

What does Christ offer as an alternative to this position. A system that holds up an elitism of ideas and an egalitarianism of people. An objective moral law exists that every human person ought to follow. All men are equal in that they are created by God to bring Him glory through worship, which includes full submission of every individual to God's elite ideal. The logical conclusion of this position is that no one has the right to dictate to any other. God established how all should live, and while following those ideals, individuals are free to interact in any way they wish within that framework. So, quite simply the position is as written in Matthew's Gospel chapter 22 and verse 37

"Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hand on these two commandments."