LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
An Evaluation of Origins and Morality in Secular Humanism Relative to the Christian Worldview
Submitted to C. Fred Smith
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
APOL 500
Apologetics
By
Robert Beanblossom
17 October 2017
Contents
Introduction..…………………….…………………..………..……………….………..1
Summary of Secular Humanism……………………….…………………….…1
Evaluation of Secular Humanism …….………………………….………..…. 3
Origins—Evolution …………………………………………………………..………. 4
The Source of Morality ………………………..…………………………..………. 5
Defense of Christianity ………………………………………….……….………. 8
Origins—Creation …………………………………………………..…….…………..8
The Source of Morality ………………………………………………….………….9
A Plan to Share and Defend the Christian Worldview ……….…11
Bibliography …..…………………………………………………………………..……15
Introduction
An This paper will examine secular humanism as a worldview and evaluate it relative to the Christian worldview. Secular humanism holds that within an ever-evolving universe man is currently the most advanced lifeform that has evolved, but is limited existentially in a world without deity to birth, life, and death; who will one day create utopia. The Christian worldview holds that the infinite personal triune God of creation is apparent in His works, and in His relationship with man, who is created in His own image. Although fallen by original sin, and living in a world cursed because of that sin, this God has provided for the redemption of man through the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead, providing two alternatives: eternity with Him through accepting that redemption, or eternity without Him for failing to accept His Son.
Each worldview will be evaluated under three essential categories of a viable worldview as proposed by Douglas Groothius. These include coherence, factual adequacy, and radical ad hoc readjustment as applied to the questions of origins and morality. This paper will show that secular humanism fails when evaluated by objective criteria, and that Christianity alone provides an adequate belief system. We will then develop an apologetic suitable for adherents to Secular Humanism.
Summary of Secular Humanism
Secular humanism proclaims the radical freedom of man and the complete rejection of the miraculous and divine while evolution is a given. This paper will consider a representative form of secular humanism defined and re-defined frequently by the series of documents known as Humanist Manifestos. It is “opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship,” while it is “explicitly committed to democracy.”1 It builds upon faith in
atheism . . . and agnosticism or skepticism. . . . Because no transcendent power will save us. . . humans must take responsibility for themselves. . . . (and) encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof.”2
“Secular humanism is a balanced and fulfilling life stance. It is more than ‘unhyphenated humanism;’ it offers its own significant emergent qualities.”3 Rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence are essential in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth, but recognizing that humans are prone to err, knowledge including principles including those governing inquiry are subject to constant correction.4 Free inquiry is the “first principle” of secular humanism. This is in militant opposition to “any tyranny over the mind of man” that includes organizational standards or precepts from religious, political, ideological, or social institutions. In the quest for truth, the “process is as important as the result.”5 The scientific method is the “most reliable way of understanding the world.” Evolution is absolutely proven by science, “(a)lthough there are some differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution.” Creationism can not be considered or examined as science, even as a possibility: religion is the anathema of
____________________
1 “A Secular Humanist Declaration,” Council for Secular Humanism. Originally published in 1980 by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (now the Council for Secular Humanism): npn., accessed 3 October 2017, https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/11.
2 Ibid., npn.
3 Tom Flinn, “Secular Humanism Defined: Secular Humanism’s Unique Selling Proposition, Undated, Council for Secular Humanism: npn., accessed 9 October 2017. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/13)
4 “Declaration,” npn.
5 “Declaration,” npn.
rationalism and the oppressor of the people. Arthur Schopenhauer observed, just before the rise of Darwin, that “in the nineteenth century we see Christianity significantly weakened, almost wholly deserted by serious faith,” as the energy of the Enlightenment made mockery of God.6
Replacing religion, reason and science are the major contributors to benefit humankind, with “no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence” to develop and exhibit ideal morality. Education is the vehicle to develop intelligence in the individual and the community.”7
Man is an evolutionary product of nature. Life originated by chance from pre-existing inorganic chemicals that combined to form viable organic lifeforms. As a product of evolution the mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of the brain in which the body, mind, and personality can have no consciousness after death.8 Human ethics are based upon Critical Intelligence in which individuals develop autonomous choices that benefit humanity as a whole over self-interest. All human values grounded in experience and relationships. Reason and the scientific method must be implemented socially in all areas of economic, political, and cultural life with full freedom of expression, parliamentary government, and civil liberties. Anti-social, that is, immoral behavior, can be corrected by education.9
Evaluation of Secular Humanism
The ongoing succession Humanist Manifestos are self-contradictory, and fail the tests of
coherence and factual adequacy as proposed as standard criteria of worldview evaluation
____________________
6 Arthur Schopenhauer, “Uber Religion,” Sammtliche Werke, ed. Julius Frauenstadt, New Ed., 6 Vol. (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1922): 6:6. Post-publication English translation by Theodore Ziolkowski.
7 “Declaration,” npn.
8 “Declaration,” npn.
9 “Declaration,” npn.
by Douglas Groothius.10 Secular humanism holds high ideals for personal achievement through science and reason in a moral environment which brings civilization to a utopian level, all by the force of personal will and self-actualization. It postulates democratic organizations where the will of the individual is willingly subordinated to the good of the group. All of this is made possible by evolution.
Origins–Evolution
Evolution is a mindless natural process, by definition, in which lifeless and amoral protons, neutrons and electrons have combined accidentally to form viable life, consciousness, intelligence, and morality. It is a continuing process in which man is an expendable organism.11 William A. Dembski says that the evolutionary community has re-defined science to include philosophical ideas that are outside the limits of the traditional method, but “evolution addresses a “scientific” question whereas intelligent design addresses a religious question.”12 He notes properly, that both are beyond the scope of the scientific method that requires observation, formulation and testing of a hypothesis, revision until tests conform to observation, and the opportunity for falsification. Evolution as a species-to-species change has never been proven, nor has any historical record been discovered to confirm it. Evolution fails as a matter of factual adequacy. Secular Humanism holds that man has intelligence, the ability to reason, and develop and live by moral values as a result of chance as described in the discussion on evolution.
____________________
10 Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Truth (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 52-60.
11 George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, rev. ed. (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1967), 345.
12 William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 117.
The Source of Morality
Secular humanism declares that moral values emanate exclusively from human experience; that “Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction;”13 and that “Critical Intelligence is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems,” since reason is balanced with “compassion and empathy.”14 The tension between individual and corporate morality is balanced by the individual goodness of man who innately possesses “individual freedom of choice. . . (that) should be increased.”15 “For the first time in history we possess the means provided by science and technology to ameliorate the human condition, advance happiness and freedom, and enhance human life for all people on the planet,” proclaims the Humanist Manifesto 2000.16 The “we” who moderates the Critical Intelligence to achieve societal good is never specified. The Christian worldview does not deny that non-Christians do not possess some measure of moral value since under that worldview, the unbeliever is the person that each Christian was prior to redemption.17 All humans are part of the Adamic race to whom God gives some indication of Himself (John 1:9). Philosopher Michael Ruse says of the modern evolutionary position, “humans have an awareness of morality. . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less
____________________
13 Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, “Humanist Manifesto II, Point 3,” American Humanist Association (1973): npn., accessed 9 October 2017, https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto2/.
14 “Manifesto II,” Point 4.
15 “Manifesto II,” Point 6
16 Paul Kurtz, 2000, “Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism,” International Academy of Humanism, USA, Prospects for a Better Future: npn., accessed 9 October 2017, https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/1169.
17 Groothius, 331.
than are hands and feet. . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. . . . Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction.”18 This “biological factor” is what William Lane Craig calls “herd mentality.”19 He refutes the proposition of Critical Intelligence by showing the inconsistency of the evolutionary argument that, while holding humans as simply another animal, claims this unique moral objectivity which other species lack. Craig calls this logical inconsistency “an unbiased bias toward one’s own species.”20
Objectivity is relative to humanists such as Kurtz: “There are objective standards that we can use. But these standards are, of course relative to interests and needs, and they change over time.”21 With no objective basis for moral accountability to make moral choices significant, those choices are trivialized, making no contributions to society.22 John Hare states that, in Kantian terms, “moral goodness without belief in God is rationally unstable.”23 The humanist attempt to restore human worth resulted in the destruction of the “self-determining, personal agent who was to have dominion over his environment rather than being determined by it,” according to Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A Demarest.”24 E. J. Carnell, as understood by Brian
____________________
18 Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-69.
19 Robert K. Garcia, and Nathan L. King, ed., Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (NY: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009), 32.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid., 35.
22 Ibid., 38.
23 Ibid., 85. “Unstable” is from N. T. Volckman’s notes to Kant’s Natural Theology, 28:1151 in the Berlin Academy Edition).
24 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 Vol. (Nashville: Zondervan, 2014), 1:41.
K. Morley, believes that as moral beings we must be aware that we “are not the authors of our own existence, (but) that we are bound by moral duties and that violations of duty are culpable before and administrator of justice who transcends humanity;” the absence of a transcendent administrator makes all moral judgements meaningless.26 We see that the evolution as the foundation and the claim for a godless source of morality fails the test of factual adequacy. William Lane Craig muses, “if theism is false, it’s very hard to understand what basis remains for objective moral duties. . . . if theism is false, what is the basis of moral accountability?”27 Even Paul Kurtz, author or co-author of the Manifestos acknowledges that the expectations of a dawning utopia in “far too optimistic” in view of ongoing world conditions.28 The secular humanist position on morality fails coherently and, as adapted and modified in the evolving Manifestos, fails in terms of current and expected radical ad hoc readjustment.
Critical Intelligence suggests that some undefined extra-human group intelligence exists that governs human moral behavior. This position fails on three counts: (1) no proof for Critical Intelligence has been proposed; (2) human behavior does not demonstrate a universal goodness in man; and, (3) the secular humanist emphasis on the autonomy of the individual is at odds with an undefined “we” that is the group ethic. R. Z. Friedman concludes that, “Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive.”28 Critical Intelligence as ____________________
25 Brian K. Morley, Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 167.
26 Groothius, 33.
27 “Manifesto II,” Preface.
28 R. Z. Friedman, “Does the Death of God Really Matter?” International Philosophical Quarterly 23 (1983): 322.
a source of societal morality is contrary to the historical behavior of man: it is without proof, not supported by the random agglomeration of inert chemicals, thus failing the test of actual adequacy; in addition, experience does not support a universal goodness of man.
Defense of Christianity
The Christian worldview is the biblical worldview. It is decisive, dogmatic, and intolerant of claims contrary to the God revealed in the Bible. Inherent and foundational are the dogmas of Creation ex niliho29 by an all-powerful eternal personal God, and absolute morality anchored in objective truth established firmly by His infinite righteousness.
Origins–Creation
Creation is attested both in the OT, as in Genesis 1:1, and in the NT, as in Revelation 4:11. His righteousness is also given in the OT, as in His relationship with the Hebrews (Deut 4:8), and in the NT as judge of all righteousness in His creation (Rev 19:1-2).
The physical cosmos is empirical evidence: we see, feel, smell, taste, and hear our world. “Human beings can know both the world around them and God Himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because He takes an active role in communicating with them,” according to James W. Sire.30 Enan McMullin, a non-Christian cosmologist, said, “if the universe began in time through the act of a Creator, from our vantage point it would look something like the Big Bang.”31 Science, the discipline that observes, formulates, tests, and
___________________
29 Dembski, 91.
30 James W. Sire, Universe Next Door (Downer’s Grove: Il; Inter Varsity Press, 2009), 36.
31 Enan McMullin, “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology?” The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, ed. A. R. Peacocke (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 39.
adjusts propositions as necessary to achieve coincidence between theory and observation, cannot rationally address creation. It is impossible to observe that which is past, and it cannot test or replicate ex niliho beginnings. No scientific test has proven any aspect of biblical creation wrong.32 Natural laws require a cause for an effect: something does not come from nothing. Rather than trying to address creation from a scientific viewpoint, William Lane Craig brings a teleological argument known as “kalam,” an inference to the best explanation: the most minute details of the cosmos, Earth, atomic and sub-atomic particles, and life itself can only exist in very narrow parameters and still function, thus a designer (God) is required.33 Creation by an all-powerful God is the only rationally acceptable proposition for beginnings.
The Source of Morality
God is Truth, morality is absolute, and derives from Him alone. Truth and morality are inextricably intertwined in the infinitude of God that authorizes His establishment of morality and truth, but A. W. Tozer admits, “You cannot understand what infinite is, but don’t let it bother you—I don’t understand it and I’m trying to explain it.”34 “We are morally responsible before God to believe things that are true and disbelieve things that are false,” according to C. Fred Smith.35 “Christianity claims to be true.”36 The world “can be lived in successfully because truth
_________________
32 Groothius, 299. Groothius disagrees, suggesting that it might hinder the apologetic argument since “science has long addressed issues that cannot be settled in the laboratory.” This writer contends that holding science to the scientific method and philosophy to things philosophical is both honest and valid.
33 Morley, 243-251.
34 A. W. Tozer, The Attributes of God: A Journey into the Father’s Heart (Chicago: Wing Spread Publishers, 2003), 1-4.
35 C. Fred. Smith, Developing a Biblical Worldview: Seeing things God’s Way (Nashville: B and H Academic, 2015), 45.
36 Groothius, 77.
functions here.”37 Groothius finds “two core components” to truth: the nature of truth, and truth claims need to be tested in light of contradictory claims.38 Evidentiary truth must be meaningful in that it puts forth an “understandable truth claim.39 Objective truth is absolute and knowable. “The truth of moral and logical principles does not correspond to reality in the same way as do statements about observable empirical facts,” states Groothius: “The law of noncontradiction is true not because it corresponds to any one slice of reality but because it corresponds to all of reality.”40 The epistemological claim that truth and morality are absolute and knowable is logically consistent. Truth, as bound by the laws of logic, is subject to the principle of non-contradiction as codified by Aristotle in Metaphysics.41 C. Fred Smith puts forth veridical goodness within the Christian worldview as the goodness of truth, claiming a rational God who created a world that has both truth and their opposites which are false, suggesting two primary tests of truth: the first is correspondence, that is, it corresponds with reality; the second is coherence, that is, it fits logically with other statements that we believe.”42 Groothius calls correspondence “realism,” since it is “commonsensical and employed by anyone who affirms something about reality.”43 The Christian worldview is grounded in an unchanging God who has given His followers the unchanging Word: He says, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day,
____________________
____________________
37 Smith, 43.
38 Groothius, 122.
39 Ibid., 123.
40 Groothius, 125.
41 Groothius, 46-47.
42 Ibid., 42-45.
43 Groothius, 123.
and forever (Heb 13:8). This concept is coherent with the rest of the Christian worldview, it is factually demonstrated in the lives of each Christian, and never changes. Christianity provides the only coherent explanation for objective truth and morality.
A Plan to Share and Defend the Christian Worldview
Each Christian is called upon by Jesus to go into our world as witnesses even as He did (John 20:21). As the apostles demonstrated, the path for each of us is different: each had a different target audience, a different approach to their mission, and different apparent results. This is consistent with the Master’s teaching (Rom 3:12-8). The last thing Christ told His followers before His ascension was that this shall be done in the power of the Holy Spirit whom He would send (Acts 1:8).
This writer has passed his threescore and ten year milestone. One of the prime lessons he has learned is that our Lord has used every step of that life to prepare him for the very next one; without exception and without fail. He has been able to minister to the church as a layman, a witness and a teacher, as he has been ministered to by his brothers and sisters in Christ. In recent years, he has, much to his own surprise, taken to the internet, at his own website and on social media, as a platform for witnessing. This is the thrust of his “outside” personal ministry. Of special interest is his participation in groups that draw atheists and confused Christians, generally those individuals who have read far more about Christianity than have actually spent time in the Word.
Secular humanists are often militant in their evangelistic efforts to convert the world to their point of view. The internet is a useful platform to draw these individuals in to discussions that often begin with an attack they made on God or some other aspect of Christianity. The author’s approach is to carefully read the post and attachments. Posts pro-evolution or anti-creation are often selected, as are comments based upon situational ethics or attacking key Christian ethical values. A key fallacy of the post or attachment will be selected for an opening remark. The approach is situational as Groothius recommends. With E. J. Carnell, I believe that there is sufficient common ground between the believer and non-believer to obey Christ’s command to witness.44 With John Frame, I believe that there is sufficient connection between our finite knowledge as His creature and God’s infinite knowledge to bring coherent arguments to the table on His behalf.45 With Richard Swinburne, I believe that logical arguments with mathematical and scientific integrity appeal to some and offer strong starting points for the message of salvation.46 With C. Fred Smith, I move, flexibly, through the four worldview questions adapted from Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton to bring relevance to the discussions.
The author will respond with a question regarding an “apparent” contradiction between the stated view and the attachment or the stated view and inherent contradictions in the secular humanist worldview as discussed above. Belligerent responses are allowed to fade away. Rational responses are followed with appropriate constructions. These early volleys often bring in other respondents. Another approach is to post a succinct lure, often from my website, such as,
It seems to me that the more I consider evolution, the more confused I am. The evolutionist believes that all life, including man, originated from pre-existing inorganic elements. . . that somehow got together and combined to form organic lifeforms that could sustain themselves.47
____________________
44 Morley, 160-161.
45 Morley, 93-94.
46 Morley, 190-194.
47 Bob Beanblossom, “Evolution—Incredible Worldview,” It Seems to Me. 2017: npn., accessed 15 October 2017, http://bobbeanblossom.com/1530-2/.
These posts and links often get quite a bit of response. Two recent posts of this sort in a Facebook group “. . . Christian Society,” drew over 100 and 130 responses each, with many from what can only be described as atheists with that John 1:8 spark working in their hearts through the Holy Spirit. These discussions are always conducted respectfully, with offensive responses ignored.
Evolution is the beginning point for a discussion leading to the establishment of an intelligent creator, and to the existence of the infinite, all-powerful personal God who is interested enough in the individual(s) in the discussion to send His own Son to provide for their redemption.
Evolution is also the springboard for discussions of objective truth and morality as the problem of sin is often interjected when the discussion turns to an infinitely holy God. Here the arguments are more structured, being always founded on Scripture. Groothius’ use of Paul’s argument to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:14-19) is a favored basis upon which to build.48
The author acknowledges ruefully that the secular perception of diverse beliefs within Christianity is both true and difficult to overcome, especially to one who has not (yet?) embraced Scripture as inspired and inerrent.49 Often appeal to the laws of logic as discussed by Groothius are helpful to these respondants.50
Specific arguments for each concept are tailored around my perception of the knowledge and understanding of the individual, with the intent always to bring that person to salvation, not to “win” an argument.
________________________
48 Groothius, 117-118.
49 Ibid., 118-122.
50 Ibid., 46-49.
The author continues to teach Christians, attempting to provide depth as the Spirit leads. Many Christians have been subjected to the same outlines with lesson plans varying only slightly from grade school to grave. Depth in understanding for them is a matter of their individual relationship with out Lord and the time they spend in prayer, fasting, and in the Scripture. Questions concerning proof of their stated beliefs often get a “deer in the headlight” response. Again, following Groothius, the construction is incremental, building precept upon precept.
This is my calling, my mission. I am not the solution, but one of a cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). My clock is running down. One day, maybe soon, I will get my transfer orders to report to my Commander-in-Chief. In the meantime, as He allows and directs, I will do my best to follow His lead, preparing constantly for what is to follow.
Bibliography
“A Secular Humanist Declaration.” Council for Secular Humanism. Originally published in 1980 by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (now the Council for Secular Humanism). Accessed 3 October 2017. https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/11.
Beanblossom, Bob. “Evolution—Incredible Worldview,” It Seems to Me. 27 September 2017. Accessed 15 October 2017. http://www.bobbeanblossom.com/1530.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999.
Flinn, Tom. “Secular Humanism Defined: Secular Humanism’s Unique Selling Proposition. Undated. Council for Secular Humanism. Accessed 9 October 2017. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/13
Friedman, R. Z. “Does the Death of God Really Matter?” International Philosophical Quarterly 23, Issue 3 (September 1983): 321-332. Accessed 10 September 2017. https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=ipq&id=ipq_1983_0023_0003_0321_0332.
Garcia, Robert K., and Nathan L. King, ed. Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics. NY: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009.
Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Truth. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Kurtz, Paul, and Edwin H. Wilson. 1973. “Humanist Manifesto II.” American Humanist Association. Accessed 9 October 2017. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto2/.
Kurtz, Paul. “Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for a New Planetary Humanism.” 2000. International Academy of Humanism, USA. Accessed 9 October 2017. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/1169.
Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology, 3 Vol. Nashville: Zondervan, 2014.
McMullin, Enan. “How Should Cosmology Relate to Theology?” The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century, A. R. Peacocke, ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Morley, Brian K. Mapping Apologetics: Comparing Contemporary Approaches. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015.
Ruse, Michael. “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” The Darwinian Paradigm. London: Routledge, 1989.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. “Uber Religion,” Sammtliche Werke, ed. Julius Frauenstadt, New Ed., 6 Vol. (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1922, 6. Cited reference translated by Theodore Ziolkowski.
Simpson, George Gaylord. The Meaning of Evolution, rev. ed. (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1967.
Sire, James W. Universe Next Door. Downer’s Grove: Il; Inter Varsity Press, 2009.
Smith, C. Fred. Developing a Biblical Worldview: Seeing things God’s Way. Nashville: B and H Academic, 2015.
Tozer, A. W. The Attributes of God: A Journey into the Father’s Heart, Vol. 1. Chicago: Wing Spread Publishers, 2003.