Saturday, December 16, 2017

A Brief Critique Of Humanist Logic

  • Following Are A Handful Of Excerpts (In Pink) From A Standard Humanist Work Titled "The Philosophy of Humanism" By Corliss Lamont:
          "There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy: First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes man is an evolutionary product of the Nature of which he is part; that his mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of his brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality he can have no conscious survival after death.”

          Indeed, it is quite eyebrow-raising to see how the author of the book capitalizes the word nature, especially considering the fact that in the Bible the name of God is always capitalized. This could easily denote atheism to be a religion. After all, there are atheist churches. There are atheist missionaries. There are evangelistic atheists who preach their worldview as being the truth. There are atheist circles that consider others who disagree with them as being heretical. Atheism is clearly a belief system. In fact, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has coined a phrase to discredit God from the American financial system: "In reason we trust." Atheism is a religion, and should thereby not be enforced upon people who subscribe to different ideological mindsets. It is a paragon of people worshiping the creation rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25).

          Notice how the quotation above presupposes the validity of scientism, which is the belief that all truth is determined by the science laboratory. However, this view is refuted because there are many truths that exist beyond the realm of science (view full article). Neither is the laboratory the only way of discovering truth. What needs to be understood is that faith and reason walk together. And how can atheists be so quick to claim that there is no supernatural realm when they have no tangible evidence ruling in favor of their verdict? If we describe the thinking processes of the human mind as being random chemical reflexes, then we have no legitimate reason to believe the claims of atheism because we would not be able to trust our own thoughts. In fact, the author renders the concept of selfhood to being an empty illusion!

          Life without God is meaningless. If the universe came into existence by mere coincidence, and we just happened to have evolved from a different species of primate forefathers over a period of several billion years, then it would follow that human life has no intrinsic value. The inevitable consequence of eliminating God from the equation of life would be that we possessed no more dignity than the soil, rocks, or other inanimate components which constitute the physical and chemical composition of this planet. To consistently embrace the atheistic worldview would also require that one cares nothing for the drastic reputational precipice of contrariety between the wealthy and impoverished. And what about the stillborn babies or people with severe cognitive impairments (who obviously do not get a chance to succeed in this life)? If no divine creator exists, then the human race would be absolutely useless and unwanted because the universe most certainly has no compassion for life. Time would simply progress as we wait for the natural, appointed termination of our physical existence. Restricting the sense of dignity to the boundaries of earthly life undermines the very meaning of human life having intrinsic value and inalienable rights (If there is no God, then no objective moral standard exists and thus our reasoning becomes subjective at best). No afterlife means having no ultimate sense of purpose or fulfillment, period. While it is impossible for atheism to give us an ultimate purpose in life, the God who inspired Scripture can grant everlasting spiritual life to those who voluntarily approach Him by faith.

          “I believe that the facts of science offer overwhelming evidence in support of the Humanist thesis of the inseparable coexistence of body and personality. To begin with, biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution probably stretching over at least three billions years….”

          Without delving into Darwinian evolution, it would be interesting to note that a Supreme Mind still could have created the universe by means of a giant cosmic explosion of expanding matter (i.e. Big Bang Theory) to accomplish the formation of animal species through evolutionary processes. So the "humanist thesis" does not really negate the possibility of supernatural creation.

          Even if scientists did successfully develop scientific models that function without God, proof of unnecessity is not proof of His nonexistence. Furthermore, the Bible presents us with its own scientifically compatible model--a literal, six-day creation as documented in Genesis chapters one and two.

          “Humanism believes that Nature itself constitutes the sum total of reality…and that supernatural entities simply do not exist. This non reality of the supernatural means, on the human level, that men do not possess supernatural and immortal souls; and, on the level of the universe as a whole, that our cosmos does not possess a supernatural and eternal God.”

          A concise refutation of naturalism should compose a sufficient analysis of the cited excerpt from Corliss Lamont's book above. Naturalism maintains that everything existing emerged from natural properties and causes to the exclusion of supernatural intervention. In other words, this logical framework operates on the premise that all things are physical and are thus dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. On the contrary, we know that naturalism is false because things such as numbers, moral laws, and information are nonphysical entities. These things transcend the five senses which scientists use to make observations and draw inferences. The elementary concept of free will disproves naturalism because this philosophy assumes that scientific laws and states are literally in control of all things. Naturalistic evolution is self-refuting because people proclaim it to be true (i.e. we cannot conduct autonomous thinking if naturalism is true). Hence, it would also be irrational for atheists to profess believe in naturalism when beliefs supposedly do not point to truth (i.e. our convictions are simply physical things which take place as a result of chemical reactions).

          “the scientific concept of evolution…effectively negates the old religious idea of a divine creation of the whole universe.”

          So something can come from nothing? Design from chaos? Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Can rationality arise from non-rationality? Can consciousness arise from non-consciousness? The answer to all these questions would be no. As a matter of fact, there are many well-constructed logical proofs for the existence of God (article one; article two). Thus, theism is more rational than atheism.

          “Matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic.”

          Is this not a circular argument (i.e. matter has power in of and itself because that is how it is)? How can matter be self-existent when it is comprised of finite particles? What infinite source of energy do atoms possess that enables matter able to act of itself without external causes? How can physical matter come from nothing or create itself? How could non-living matter become alive by itself? How does this kind of humanist reasoning not violate the principle of sufficient reason (i.e. everything must have a reason, cause, or ground)?

          It would be far more reasonable to believe that an infinitely powerful, all-knowing, and everlasting God set forth all things in an orderly fashion on the basis of His spoken commands. It would be far more sensible to believe in a God who infinitely transcends the boundaries of nature (Psalm 33:4-8). The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1).

          ''A careful analysis of both the natural and the social sciences shows, in the first place, that we do not attain something that is to be called ‘absolute’ truth, but rather what John Dewey cautiously describes as ‘warranted assertibility''

          If there are no absolute truths, then a.) scientific laws are subjective, b.) no point in education because truth is subjective, c.) the concept of certainty is illusionary, d.) no such thing as crime because nobody can definitively declare an action to be evil, e.) no such thing as human rights, and f.) reality becomes an illusion. If there are no absolute truths, then there is no reason for us to believe in the arguments in favor of atheism and no point in Corliss Lamont teaching humanism in books. A society that functions on a moral relativistic worldview will by definition collapse from within. Moral relativism is like a universal acid that corrodes all monuments of truth. A consistently atheistic civilization is the breeding ground for unspeakable evil.

          “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by the consequences for the individual and society.”

          Secular consequentialism is the ethical system which maintains that the morality of an action is dependent on its results. In other words, this worldview judges the morality of actions in accordance to their conclusions (i.e. not in the action itself). But this method of moral discernment is quite perplexing. What constitutes the authentic definition of good? Who gets to determine the meanings of good and evil? Good for who? What about bad personal motives that just so happened to produce positive consequences for other people? What about the fact that we cannot predict the outcomes of our actions before we act? From whence would morality come from in the first place?

          ''The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. He bows down to no alleged supreme moral authority either past or present…But we can say…some ends justify some means. In getting at the ethical significance of a means-end situation, it is always necessary to be specific and inquire,‘Does this particular end or set of ends justify this particular means or group of means?''

          Of course, it is perfectly understandable for atheists to openly reject the notion of objective moral laws because they are retaliating against the God who created them. The quoted statements from the book above are symptomatic of a puffed-up heart. But if there is no supreme Moral Authority who legislates a universal moral standard, then we can ultimately do whatever we want. Atheists would have no right to express their disagreements with us in an objective fashion. If societies get to determine their own moral law codes, then what happens when they contradict each other or themselves? How would such a scenario not render the idea of self-improvement or improvement of society nonsensical? Romans chapter one accurately describes the conditions of our God deprived society: foolish, prideful, and perverse. The Bible is very much relevant to our culture and accurately describes in ample detail the problem alongside with the solution for mankind.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. If God doesn't exist and Objective Morality isn't real either then what exactly does Jesse have to be ashamed about. If Morality is subjective and everyone gets to decide what is right and wrong for themselves or If the majority decides what is right and wrong then we can murder our children and offer them up to statues, whore our kids out at religious festivals, and forget about world hunger, why is it wrong to let poor people starve? After all they are just another animal right? Just following Atheism to it's logical conclusions. Atheist can't say these things are wrong with %100 certainty.

  2. It reminded me of this passage from Craig's debate with Atkins, which said that "science is omnipotent" because it supposedly "can explain everything." Besides a beautiful rebuttal, it's also pretty funny:

    1. So much for the claim that science can account for the essential features of life!