Humanism Is an Anti-God No Right No Wrong Anything Goes Liberal Religion

Some theology from Oleander Avenue

This entry by ian was posted on Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 and is filed under Living. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
« Clean Water Classic 10/25 - 10/26
Star News: Tour to highlight ‘green’ home designs »

4 Responses to “Humanism Is an Anti-God No Right No Wrong Anything Goes Liberal Religion”

  1. Ranald on October 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    But perhaps a humanist can spell “religion”. In the age of W and Palin, though, who cares?

  2. Derrick Nantz on October 14th, 2008 at 2:56 am

    Random House dictionary defines Humanism as an ideology which emphasizes “reason, scientific inquiry and human fulfillment in the natural world.” To anyone who knows a rational person, a scientist, or someone aiming at self-fulfillment in this world, you would also know that it would be dishonest and erroneous to characterize them as subjectivists (those who believe in “no right, no wrong”) or as someone who practices an “anything goes” moral code.

    Similarly, this sign is dishonest and vicious and, in fact, is an example of one of the most popular and vile falsehoods perpetuated by Christianity: The view that morality is a feature exclusive to Christianity alone (or at least religion alone) . This statement is worse than false. There are a plethora of philosophies, creeds, and religions which adopt or propound certain moral codes, many compatible with Christianity. These need not be thought of as correct by Christianity, but honesty demands that they be acknowledged. This is so, because morality properly defined simply means ‘a code of values which one adopts to guide one’s life’.

    It is no accident, however, that many Christian sects wish to continue with Christianity’s past tradition of vilifying philosophy and other non-adherents as wild, hedonistic wretches, who are guided by nothing but their unprincipled and base emotions (carnal desires). As a system of thought based, not on reason and logic, but on FAITH, religion cannot appeal to a person’s mind by evidence, proof, and sound argument; It can only appeal to its adherents’ emotions . And, religion does this by appealing to two mutually reinforcing emotions: the appeal of reward (The Afterlife, guidance and help from God, etc.) and the threat of fear (by threats of the “other” Afterlife, judgment, punishment, and now moral degeneration, where even doubt or uncertainty is deemed sinful). And, because it is rational for any person to want to live well and interact harmoniously with others, for those who think that Christianity = Morality, such people will dreadfully fear losing their faith and fear/hate non-believers almost as strongly as they would any bonafide criminal.

    To repeat: Humanism is a generic term for all those ideologies who do not see the world as a mystical place, but believe it is, in principle, fully comprehensible. It is an ideology that does not see life as a temporary stop on our way to our real, eternal (After) life, but sees one’s own life on earth as deserving of the highest respect and honor, because it is all that there is. It is a philosophy that embraces human achievement, human prosperity, and human knowledge. Humanistic philosophy is an ideology which deserves to be taken seriously, and outside the closed doors of small and aging churches with weak foundations…it is taken seriously.

  3. Wild, hedonistic, wretch on October 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am

    Nice riposte, Derrick. But does mere life deserve “respect and honor” because it is all there is, as you say, or is there not something intrinsically honorable about a life lived as humans? In your zealousness to rebuke the faithful, you’re throwing out a baby that I think is in the bathwater there (of life w/o religion).

    Or do you think my baby is a part of the metaphysical problem? That is, do you think that notions about the sanctity of life fall within the realm of the erroneous?

  4. Derrick on December 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Forgive me for not responding sooner. Yes, life is valuable because “it is is all there is.” Living things are the only entities that face the fundamental alternative of life or death. Therefore, life makes life value. It is concept “life” that gives rise to the concept of value. What makes particular things in life valuable is what advances the particular organism in question’s life. For human beings, this means a life of reason and all that that implies.

    You ask, “is there not something intrinsically honorable about a life lived as humans?” And, in one sense, the answer is “Yes”–if you are a human and you value your life, then your life is valuable for the “intrinsic” reason that you are valuing something (your life) that is intrisic to you. But this is not at all what you mean. What you mean by “intrinsic” is something bound up in our nature. And both further and more importantly, what you leave unmentioned, but implicit, is that this intrinsic element that makes us good/valuable is something that was put in us by God, who is allegedly the ultimate judge on what is good or bad. This is why you conclude by throwing at me a package deal that valuing human life = believing in God (i.e. the baby & the bath water analogy), and you then try to trap me in a false alternative of either 1) Human life is valuable & this comes from religion 2) Human life is valueless & Atheism.

    The lives of human beings are valuable because each of us values his/her life. We “respect and honor” ourselves and each other, rather than murder and steal from each other, because human beings are rational beings and the good life is the rational life — i.e. a life of thinking, producing, learning, socializing, cooperating voluntarily, and in essence living a rich and selfish life. This type of life–because it is proper to a human being and will advance his life, if practiced, is part and parcel of living a moral life. This is far different than the values that religion espouses, i.e. praying, engaging in acts of humility, living by faith as opposed to reason, and performing self-sacrificial/altruistic acts as a way of achieving morality.

    To provide you with a true (rather than a false) alternative. There is only one mode of living of the two described above that will advance your life. With Pascal’s Wager recognized as false, the question at hand is, which life do you hold as truly real–this life or the afterlife–because you will sacrifice one. If you truly adhere to the former you will not have to wait until heaven to achieve happiness; and if you truly dedicate your life to the latter, you will make your life on earth a living hell. And, if you compromise and take a little from the values of each, then you will live with inner conflict and mediocrity as your legacy.

    I have chosen to claim my life, as it is, as my own, and to live with the “consequences” of a happiness that stems from the achievement of my values. I could not be happier, more confident, and satisfied with my life. If I shall burn for this, then it was worth it; I am not afraid to be a martyr for my values, neither here or in hell.

Leave a Reply