Critique Two - Part Four - Autonomy Assumed

"As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision-making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law." This statement is part of Mr. Kurtz' opening remarks for the third position of "loose consensus" for a good majority of secular humanists. There is much to say, but I believe it really comes down to two really problematic considerations at which humanists must simply wave their hand, but cripple this mindset of the ideal of freedom.

First, there is an assumption underlying the purely democratic position presented here. Mr. Kurtz is presenting a democratic system of decision-making based on majority rule that will stand for freedom from any group's attempt at control, that will defend and protect human rights all for the ultimate strengthening of the human race. The assumption here seems all too clear; namely, the majority will choose the 'right' thing for the human race. But from whence does the idea of the 'right' thing come? Isn't the 'right' thing for the human race being decided by the human race one vote at a time? If there is no absolute moral law (which is what theists posit as part of the nature of God) what does 'right' even mean, except what the majority decides? This brings up a frightening question, what constitutes a majority decision? 51 of 100? What if 51 out of 100 people feel that people over the age of 70 represent the vast majority of health care costs, and since economically the culture cannot maintain itself at the current rate of expenditure for health care, and so for the betterment of society as a whole anyone over the age of 70 should be euthanized? Wouldn't this have to be implemented? Wouldn't this actually be the 'right' thing to do since the majority had considered the ultimate betterment of society and legitimately voted of the policy? These questions are not far-fetched or extreme, history shows that man is capable of exactly this line of reasoning outside any religious system. Without an unchangeable set of values that says all life is precious and filled with intrinsic value, what would keep any group in the majority from simply deciding which other groups were a 'drag' of the society as a whole and having them eliminated? It is only through an altruistic and simple view of all men as autonomous agents who always choose actions that are 'right' or 'good'. Those who espouse a Biblical-Christian worldview (and the founders of this nation) present a view of humanity that is actually consistent with reality, namely, man knows what is right, he doesn't do it. We know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, because we are created in the image of God and therefore have common leanings toward the good. Evil is simply a perversion of good, and that is true for every human regardless of race, color, creed, location, age, or any other material or physical attribute.

That brings us to the whole discussion on freedom. What is the freedom we are talking about here? Mr. Kurtz actually borrows from the Declaration of Independence and says humanists are for the defense of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". He says these are rights are all human rights. With due respect, from whence do these rights that all humans have come? If humans are nothing more than cosmic accidents that exist because of a combination of random chance and time then did these rights come from the cosmos? Chance? Time? Do we give these rights to ourselves? Why do we have these rights and not trees or tadpoles or groundhogs? Again, looking to the founders, who were directly influenced by the likes of Coke, Blackstone and Locke who wrote based on the ideas of the Reformation, these rights are called "inalienable" and are said to be given to man by his "Creator". They understood man was created in the image of God and therefore has intrinsic value with rights to life, liberty and property that were not given by man and could not be infringed upon or taken away by man.

Arthur James Balfour dealt with the ideas of humanism in the early 1900's and addressed these very issues in a series of lectures later published under the title "Theism and Humanism". On the topics of freedom, values and democracy, he says the following:

"How came they to be what they are? To what causal process are they due?...what survival value have aesthetic judgments and feelings at any stage in culture?...It must, in other words, be shown that communities rich in the genius which creates beauty and in the sensibility which enjoys it, will therefore breed more freely and struggle more successfully than their less gifted neighbors...if so, our aesthetic sensibilities must be regarded (from the naturalistic standpoint) as the work of chance. They form no part of the quasi design which we attribute to selection; they are unexplained accidents of the evolutionary process. This conclusion harmonizes ill with the importance which civilized man assigns them in his scheme of values...Can we be content with a world-outlook which assigns to these chance products of matter and motion so vast a value measured on the scale of culture, and no value worth counting measured on the scale of race survival?...Where then, it will be asked, do we reach the point in the aesthetic scale at which values begin to require metaphysical or theological postulates? Is it the point at which beauty begins? If so, who determines where this lies; and by what authority do they speak?"

I believe what the secular humanists are advocating is autonomy for man, that humankind should be able to do whatever humankind decides to do. This, however, is not freedom but slavery. We all live in the present with a record of the recent past. Humankind cannot see into the distant past nor the future, and therefore can have no concept of how things began or how current decisions will turn out in the end. Worse, if it is a given that we are nothing more than happy cosmic accidents it doesn't even matter what decisions we make or if we survive as a race another day. So, under the secular humanist worldview, all decisions by a majority will turn out to be choices made in response to whim or fancy, even if they are arrived at after serious contemplation and discussion and with all possible sincerity. In this attempt to throw off all restraint by God, government and anyone else who would attempt to 'control' them, mankind ends up being shackled by his own appetites, enslaved by his own wants, and subject to his own selfish desires.

In contrast, Jesus who was and is and is to come offers the following with respect to freedom:
"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free...I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." John 8:31,32 and 34-36

What are the commandments Jesus proposed we hold to for the truth and subsequently freedom?

"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."