Visit
AP's Website
We would like to thank AP for allowing us to post this
tract on our site. Please visit their
site for more material.
CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
“Absolute truth belongs
only to one class of humans—the class of absolute fools.” These are the
piercing words of the late Ashley Montagu, famous evolutionist/humanist of
Why do men make such
statements? The answer, it seems, lies in an ever-increasing attitude of
“supreme self-sufficiency”—a burning desire to “cut themselves from the apron
strings of God” as it were. George Gaylord Simpson, the famous paleontologist
of Harvard, wrote:
Man stands alone in the universe,
a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with
unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself,
and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not
the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own
master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny (1953, p. 155).
Richard Leakey has echoed
those same sentiments.
Unquestionably mankind is special, and in many ways, too...
There is now a critical need for a deep awareness that, no matter how special
we are as an animal, we are still part of the greater balance of nature...
During that relatively brief span evolutionary pressures forged a brain capable
of profound understanding of matters animate and inanimate: the fruits of intellectual
and technological endeavour in this latter quarter of
the 20th century give us just an inkling of what the human mind can
achieve. The potential is enormous, almost infinite. We can, if we so choose, do virtually anything. (1977,
p. 256; first emp. in orig.; latter emp. added.).
But is that the only, or even
the major, reason for this “debunking of God” in favor of a purely human
vantage point? No. It is not just that man is convinced he can make it on his
own, though that in itself would be bad enough.
Rather, it is the attitude of which the apostle Paul spoke in Romans 1:28 as he
discussed those who “refused to have God in their knowledge.” It has to do with
those who “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator” (Romans
I had motives for not wanting the
world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without
any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... The
philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with
a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid
reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the
philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The
liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966,
Statements like these show
the absolute determination of some to live without God, no matter what the
cost. It is difficult not to be reminded of the people of whom Paul spoke in
Ephesians 2:11-13—who found themselves in the position of “having no hope, and
without God in the world.” Such thinking is the warped product of what has been
called “the void of humanism” (see Stearsman, 1981,
25[12]:490-491).
THE TENETS OF HUMANISM
There is nothing left to
the imagination when it comes to the tenets of humanism. This system of thought
has been so well defined and so oft’ discussed that it is an easy matter to
understand its goals, aims, objectives, and teachings. In 1933, and again forty
years later in 1973, humanists set forth their credo in Humanist Manifesto I
and Humanist Manifesto II. Humanism is not just a system of thought that
stresses the importance of humankind. Rather, humanism is a subtle, disarming,
and sophisticated way of saying “atheism.” The Humanist Manifesto II makes that
clear: “As nontheists, we begin with humans, not God,
nature, not deity. ...humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No
deity will save us; we must save ourselves” (1973, p. 16).
The Humanist Manifesto I is composed of fifteen theses covering such areas as ethics,
religion, man’s origin and destiny, etc. It was signed by such men as R. Lester
Mondale, brother of former United States Vice-President Walter Mondale, and
American educator John Dewey, among others. Humanist Manifesto II contains
seventeen theses grouped under five major headings: Religion, Ethics,
Individual, Democratic Society, and World Community. It was signed by a number
of influential people from almost every walk of life, including, among others,
Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, Francis Crick, Julian Huxley, Anthony Flew,
Corliss Lamont, and Kai Nielsen. In the Preface, the proponents state: “As in
1933, humanist still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the
prayer-healing God, assumed to love and care for persons, ...is an unproved and
outmoded faith” (1973, p. 13).
Humanists have “taken aim”
at God, religion, the supernatural, and the Gospel message, and intend to
“shoot to kill.” Consider, for example, this statement from Kai Nielsen,
humanist philosopher and former editor of The
Humanist magazine.
In cultures such as ours,
religion is very often an alien form of life to intellectuals. Living as we do
in a post-enlightenment era, it is difficult for us to take religion seriously.
The very concept seems fantastic to us. …that people in our age can believe
that they have had a personal encounter with God, that they could believe that
they have experienced conversion through a “mystical experience of God,” so
that they are born again in the Holy Spirit, is something that attests to human
irrationality and a lack of sense of reality (1977, p. 46).
The message is clear. Those
people who accept God, His Son, His Word, and His salvation are “out of touch
with reality,” “irrational,” and “unreasonable.” There is no misunderstanding
humanism, what it teaches, or what it hopes to accomplish. The Humanist Manifesto II is quite specific
on a number of important points. Consider, for example, the humanists’ comments
on religion.
We believe, however, that
traditional or dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God,
ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human
species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in
our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so... We
find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is
either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and
fulfillment of the human race... Promises of salvation or fear of eternal
damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present
concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices.
Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine”
and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an
emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total
personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social
and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the
death of the body (1973, pp. 15-17).
Consider also these comments
on the subject of ethics.
We affirm that moral values
derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational,
needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human needs
and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning
because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative
realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment,
are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now.
The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment despite debasing forces…. Reason and intelligence are the most
effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither
faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods,
which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance,
must be extended further in the solution of human problems”(1973, pp. 17-18;
emp. in orig.).
Lastly, consider these
comments on “sexual freedom.”
In the area of sexuality, we believe
that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and
puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth
control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of
exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to
prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults.
The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered
“evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity,
a civilized society should be a tolerant
one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals
should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their
lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a
responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as
sexual objects and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect and honesty in
interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults
is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity (1973, pp.
18-19; emp. in orig.).
These, in summary, are the
tenets of humanism. Promises of salvation are “illusory and harmful,” ethics is
“situational,” and sexual activity between “consenting adults” is acceptable no
matter who or what is involved. Sounds like “vice is nice” propaganda, doesn’t
it? Abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and even what some call the “last
taboo”—incest—are acceptable according to humanism. As one author put it:
“While humanity did not arise from the beasts, Humanism certainly stoops to
their level...” (Jones, 1981, 98[20]:309).
Many people simply are not
aware that humanism advocates such things. Furthermore, many are not aware that
humanism has its own systems of cosmology, soteriology, ethics, and even
eschatology—all of which stand in direct opposition to the Bible. What, then,
should be the Christian’s response to such teachings?
CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANISM
It is important to
understand that a Christian cannot be a humanist. There are those who claim to
be “Christian humanists” or “religious humanists.” But humanism and
Christianity are not compatible. Paul Kurtz, former editor of The Humanist, addressed the subject of
“Christian humanism,” and observed: “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the
word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and Creator of the
universe. Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing
to admit that they are atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to
God-intoxicated believers” (1973, p. 177). Humanist writer Corliss Lamont has
gone so far as to state: “Passing to the New Testament, we see plainly that its
theology, taken literally, is totally alien to the Humanist viewpoint” (1977,
p. 50).
Humanism and Christianity
are mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed systems. Humanism states that
matter is eternal, that there is no God, that man and his environment are the
result of evolutionary forces, that ethics is situational, that no one can have
absolute truth, that there is no life after death, that views of salvation are
illusory and harmful, that man is the most important thing in the Universe,
that man has no soul, that there is no heaven or hell, and so on.
Christianity, on the other hand,
teaches the exact opposite of these things. The Bible speaks often of an
eternal God, man’s immortal soul, heaven, hell, a promised and planned
salvation, the absolute nature of Truth, morals based on an objective standard,
etc. Humanists have failed to comprehend one of the greatest of all truths—that
the “fear of the Lord” is both “the beginning of knowledge” and “the beginning
of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7;
It is the Christian system
that places man in his proper place in the Universe—as a specially created
being (Genesis
The wisdom man values so
highly, God often sets at nought (1 Corinthians
CONCLUSION
Why do we find the world in
the state it is today? Tim LaHaye, in his book, The Battle for the Mind, has suggested: “Our present society is in
a state of moral decay, not because the majority of Americans love degeneracy,
but because the influence of humanism has been greater on our culture than the
influence of the church” (1980, p. 189). Christ said:
Ye are the salt of the earth: but
if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be
salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be
cast out and trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city
set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and
put it under a bushel, but on a stand; and it shineth
unto all that are in the house. even so let your light
shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
who is in heaven (Matthew
God’s people are to uphold
that which is right, and oppose that which is wrong. In so doing, we set an
example for all around us to see. We must oppose humanism because its teachings
are contrary to the teachings of God’s Word. We must come to understand, and
help others to understand, the folly of human “wisdom” such as is found in
humanism.
For it is written, I will destroy
the wisdom of the wise, and discernment of the discerning will I bring to
naught. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of the
world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For seeing that in
the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good
pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe (1
Corinthians
Human wisdom leads away from
God if not founded on, guarded by, and subject to biblical revelation. Human
wisdom is at war with God (Romans 8:7), and is foolishness as far as God is concerned
(1 Corinthians
REFERENCES
Humanist Manifestos I & II (1933/1973), (
Huxley, Aldous (1966),
“Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report:
Perspective on the News.
Huxley, Julian (1965), Fortune Magazine, February.
Jones, Shawn (1981), “The
Most Dangerous Religion in the World,” Firm
Foundation, 98[20]:309, May 19.
Kurtz, Paul (1973), The Humanist Alternative (
LaHaye, Tim (1980), The
Lamont, Corliss (1977), The Philosophy of Humanism (
Leakey, Richard (1977), Origins (
Montagu, Ashley, (1981),
Interview in The
Nielsen, Kai (1977), The Humanist, May/June.
Simpson, George Gaylord
(1953), Life of the Past (
Stearsman, Jackie M. (1981), “The Void of Humanism,” Christian Bible Teacher, 25[12]:490-491,
December.