Secular Humanists feel that, "The good is not what some abstract God dictates, but what contributes to the liberation, growth, and progress of human beings. Instead of being God-centered, we should be human-centered" (Veith, 1994. p. 71). What do you think about this statement?
Answer:
Looking at the question from strictly moral and ethical point of view:
Given, that two people living very similar lives and adhering to identical ethical and moral codes; but one of them is atheist, while the other is Christian: is there a difference between them on a moral standard?
If a man, who doesn’t believe in supernatural, lives his life consistently in the acts of love, charity, truthfulness, hard work, loyalty and integrity, while fulfilling his purpose to serve humanity and our planet: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
But what about a Christian, who is God-centered, but fails to fulfill the standards, set by the Bible: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
Secular Humanism does not necessarily reject the principles of the Christian ethics and morals. It simply wants to take religion out of it. Secular Humanist principles however, are based on individual, scientific and social knowledge and thus it may not have unambiguous rules set in place, such in the Bible. Meaning, that while killing, stealing, cheating etc. are not acceptable in neither worldview; rules about sexuality or relationships in general may differ greatly.
Things that “contribute to the liberation, growth and progress of the human beings” are good. I would add: as long as it does no harm to our fellow humans and to our non-human World. I still seem to think that we, humans, have the inclination to grow and progress at the cost of our very planet and I don’t see that very ethical or moral at all, whether you are God-centered or Human centered.
Then there is another aspect to think about: many things secular humanists don’t necessarily reject, but don’t support either. Nature takes care of that. For example, homosexuality: Christianity considers it an “outgrowth of mankind’s sinful nature”. It is unacceptable morally. Period.
Morally, secular humanism doesn’t deny it… it doesn’t care. Why? Because nature takes care of that part. Secular Humanism is the cousin of Naturalism. One of their concepts is: only the strongest genes survive; only the strongest genes get to be passed on via reproduction. Well… with natural methods that will hardly happen amongst homosexual couples. (Surgical or other methods are not natural and that is the subject of a whole new moral/ethical discussion).
The Bible provides a very clear-cut set of rules defined by God: it leaves minimal room for misinterpretation and misuse. And because humans have a natural tendency to test their boundaries and fall into greed and lust, these guidelines are more effective in unifying humanity into one coherent moral/ethical direction. Secular Humanism in the question of morals and ethics is vague: it doesn’t provide effective guidance to those in doubt.
In conclusion, the statement itself in the beginning in the respect of morals and ethics is not necessarily bad or wrong, but rather incomplete and vague; leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical.
From a religious aspect it’s a different discussion…
Question:
You wrote a thorough post on your thoughts about secular humanism. You made a great point about secular humanism wanting to take religion out of the picture completely. They do not believe in absolute truth, sinful nature, and suffering. Your conclusion about the way secular humanists view morals, "leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical" is exactly right on target. I do however want you to think more about how Secular humanists view Christian morals and standards. Since secular humanist believe in the "is=ought" basis for ethics and relativism has sunk into the fabric of some of our culture too, this is counter to everything that the Bible speaks and teaches. So what is the answer to your question, "is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?" Thoughts?
Answer:
One is ought to be judged for one's acts; for only acts will reflect one's core beliefs, whether one is conscious of it or not.
By this I mean, that man could preach the word of God with all his heart, yet defy those words with his actions; while one, who consciously refuses to believe in the supernatural, acts upon the word of God driven by a subconscious or innate desire to serve and love.
By no means are people extreme one way or another, but ultimately actions are the end result of whatever worldview or belief system we harbor consciously or subconsciously.
The "is=ought" basis for ethics isn't necessarily counter to everything the Bible speaks and teaches.
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare." (Cherry & Matsumura, n.d.)
The two worldviews, although they share many of the same moral and ethical values, differ in their fundamental belief about supernatural in such extreme measure, that any argument about their supportive reasoning is already decided pointless in the minds of the opposing party.
I would like to share links with you from the website of the Council of Secular Humanism. I think it is only fair to read about how they define their worldview from their point of view. It is not to say that anyone needs to take sides. But after gathering information from both Christian view on humanism and humanism view on humanism, you'll have a better (a more fair) chance to draw your own conclusions as to how and where they fit into the big picture.
Links to look into:
Cherry & Matsumura. (n.d.) 10 Myths about secular humanism. Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cherry1_18_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi%26vol%3D18
Gunasekara, V. A. (n.d.) Core principles of humanism. Retrieved from http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundations of Christian Thought.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bte168D9ShMC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=secular+humanism+is%3Dought&source=bl&ots=xY8X8zlR81&sig=oS3Z8VZrUATTGku2r_aNP36yKW0&hl=en&ei=AyjoTLqlNMGqlAf60LzVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secular%20humanism%20is%3Dought&f=false
