Like Button

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Direction Matters

In our current world we have two primary competing worldviews. A worldview is defined as "a mental model of reality — a comprehensive framework of ideas & attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a system of beliefs, a system of personally customized theories about the world and how it works — with answers for a wide range of questions." A worldview provides your basis for interpreting things, answering life questions, determining reality, etc. The current most common worldviews are humanism and theism. (There are certainly others; these are just two, but quite prevalent.)

According to Wikipedia, humanism is "a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." This worldview is specifically nontheistic, centering instead on humans as the primary determiner of life, the universe, and everything (so to speak). Is it right, wrong, moral, immoral, real, fake, true, false? We decide. We don't need a deity for that. This worldview interprets all of life's questions starting with and ending with Man.

Over against that, theism begins and ends with God. God is the beginning; God is the end. God is the point. All of life -- right, wrong, moral, immoral, real, fake, true, false -- is focused on and determined by God. Science, humans, all of reality is dependent on God. If He says it's so, it's so. If He says it's right (or wrong), it is. Everything in life is explained by God. (Note: I didn't say "can be explained" because if there is, indeed, a God, it is certain that He won't be able to explain to finite human beings everything that He is.)

Now, here's the interesting thing. Both humanism and theism share some values in common. Both argue that humans have intrinsic worth. For instance, both humanism and theism think that shooting school children is a bad thing and we ought to do something about it. Both humanism and theism argue that sexual abuse is a bad thing. Both humanism and theism use terms like "equality" and "rights". Both humanism and theism value things like compassion, integrity, generosity, personal responsibility, and such. In a sense, it appears that both humanism and theism are pretty much alike in their values. That, of course, would be a mistake.

You see, one of the fundamental differences between the two is their basis -- humans or God. As such humanism suffers from a curious lack of support ... for humanist values.

Humanism values human dignity and science. They argue that life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. They seek the best outcome for the most people. Their moral values seek to avoid harm. They expect science and reason to make sense of the world. They champion human rights. One poster I saw said, "I am a humanist. If you are hungry, I will offer food ... I do not do these things in hopes of being rewarded ... I do these things because I know them to be right. I set my own standards and I alone enforce them." And therein lies the problem. Humanism values human dignity, but the basis for that dignity is ... human. It's circular. Which means it's meaningless. "It just is" is not a basis. Science is the primary source of answers, but science by definition is constantly changing. Based on testing, experimentation, hypotheses, asking-answering-repeat, what is true in science today is likely to change tomorrow. But this is their sure footing, their basis for life's answers. Science might tell them that humans evolved and are, therefore, just another biochemical bag more complicated than earlier ones. It is not rational to conclude, then, that this latest evolutionary step is more valuable than earlier ones, but the humanist is quite confident in the value of the human being. Never mind the inconsistency that argues that the human being prior to exiting the birth canal is not of equal value. Never mind the inconsistency that argues that science answers our questions until we ask what gender we may or may not be, in which case we will ignore science. Humanism and its god, Science, eliminate objective reality, which removes the basis for the values it holds dear.

On the other hand, theism begins with God. God declares that Man was made in His image. As such, theism provides a solid basis for the intrinsic value of human beings. Further, God as Creator and Master declares what is right and wrong, good and bad. He does so infallibly; He does so as Good. Thus, morality has its footings in His declarations. One might think that science would not fare well in a theistic worldview, but that would be a mistake. According to J. Robert Oppenheimer, the non-Christian American theoretical physicist that helped develop the atomic bomb, and others, modern science has its roots in theism. The idea was that if a rational Being made all that is, rational beings should be able to make sense of what He made. The entire pursuit of scientific thought has its underpinnings in theism. And the values that theism holds with humanism have their sure foundation in God.

And so it goes. The things that humanism values it cannot support. The things that theism values it supports. There is no basis in humanism for morality or human worth. As the poster I quoted said, "I set my own standards and I alone enforce them." Theism and humanism might share some values, but the basis and, therefore, solidity of those values isn't the same between them. The direction you come at the question really does matter.

15 comments:

Bob said...

"I set my own standards and I alone enforce them." yea but what if those standards diminish the value of Jews, or Christians, or humans in general. sure it sounds great when humanist say "if your hungry i will feed you" but what happens if for some reason they change their standards? Hitler and Stalin were perhaps the Best secular Humanist the modern world has ever witnessed. they set their standards and Enforced them with great skill. because the humanist uses himself as the frame of reference, the best he can come up with is; an enhancement of his own personality. and if he is an Ass... well go figure.
The humanist also suffers an incredible contradiction. although he may appear to champion the cause of human existence, he does so at the expense of human existence. somebody else has to pay for the results of his failed social experiments. because He is the center of his existence;The demands for truth and Moral judgment, will always be subordinate to His own personal interest.

Anonymous said...

I thought of today's blog post when I ran into this quote online, and I'm wondering what any of you regulars make of it. If we see nature as "God's handiwork," should that motivate us to study it in fine detail, or to go the other way and trust that all is in His good hands such that we needn't concern ourselves much with it?

“One ought to be ashamed to make use of the wonders of science embodied in a radio set, the while appreciating them as little as a cow appreciates the botanic marvels in the plants she munches.” — Albert Einstein

Stan said...

The origin of modern science was precisely based on the argument that God made it all and we should be able to learn more about it in order to "think God's thoughts after Him." Modern science started because Scripture says, "His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20) and "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork." (Psa 19:1) 

Craig said...

With the increasing convergence of humanism with Darwinian theory, the entire rationale for helping anyone is being undermined by a philosophy which doesn't really acknowledge that humans have any intrinsic value.

Stan said...

It clearly approves of murdering the unborn (now a "non-person human") but also cannot defend against eliminating troublesome "others" like the old, the sick, etc. Without even trying, they also managed to eliminate the assumed basis for human rights. "We demand our rights ... which are merely ours because ... we demand them."

Anonymous said...

Does your (any of you) walk with the Lord give you deep insights into fundamental questions that have taxed the minds of humanists? I'll give just two examples of what I am talking about.

Since 1915 it has been clear from theoretical formulae that the universe will either expand forever or close back on itself in what some call a "big crunch," which is like the big bang time-reversed. The latter case may allow for cycling through new universes endlessly. Modern astronomers mostly side with the "expand forever" scenario based on observational data. What if anything does the Lord reveal to you about this?

"Platonism" is the view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Some buy into this, while others reject it in favor of the claim that mathematical objects are purely an invention of our human minds, and could be quite different in alien minds if there are any out there. Again, are you led of the Lord to come down in favor of one view?

Asked more broadly, do you tend to trust the conclusions of Christians on deep scientific and mathematical problems more than you do the conclusions of others?

Craig said...

Once you eliminate the imago dei, you eliminate any innate basis for human rights. The more you hold the Darwinian theory, the less reason you have to object to the strong “oppressing” the weak.

David said...

Neither the expanding universe, nor the existence of mathematics are humanistic or theist problems. The theories about the expanding universe or mathematics aren't necessary for our daily lives, our religious practices, or our humanitarian activities, so they're not covered in Scripture. Would I be more willing to listen to a Christian scientist than a non? Possibly, but only if the Christian scientist is starting from a theistic world view, otherwise, both the Christian and non have the same weight in my book. But that's regarding scientific investigation, not theoretical nonsense like you presented. Who cares if the universe is eternally expanding or will eventually collapse. Nobody will be around for either. Who cares if mathematics are a natural phenomena or purely human construct. Even if they non-existent aliens arrived to tell us one way or the other, it doesn't change how we use math and won't effect how we interact with the world around us.

Anonymous said...

You can find theists-- including I'm pretty sure some who are specifically Christian-- who see humans turning into "perfected beings" for an afterlife that is lived in this physical universe we are already located in. Some of those go so far as to say it will be on this same planet Earth. I take David's "nobody will be around" to mean he doesn't share that eschatology.

Stan said...

You like to have these "not particularly connected to the blog entry but I'm sure you're wrong" discussions, don't you? Christian teaching specifies a new heaven and a new earth. I'm not familiar with the ones you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Stan, if you have blogged on "new heaven and a new earth" in a way that answers my question about David's eschatology, kindly take a moment to direct me to that post. And if you haven't, what a wonderful topic idea for the future.

Hey, I hope my topic peregrinations haven't caused too much heartburn for anyone. ;-}

Stan said...

Not sure "peregrination" is the idea. I say, "Direction matters." I point out that, while humanism and theism might share some values, humanism offers no basis for the values they share with theism. You say, "Do you believe in the 'big crunch' or the 'expand forever' scenario?" That's not a long journey; that's a side trip almost entirely unrelated to the road we're on.

As for blogging on the new heaven and earth, yes and no. You see, Christians are "people of the book." We don't get to make up our own religion. We don't get to manufacture our own beliefs. Christianity isn't a democracy; it's a theocracy. Since the Bible is not vague on the topic of a new heaven and a new earth (e.g., Isa 65:17; Rev 21:1; etc.), Christians uniformly believe in it. I think it's one of the things Christians don't disagree on.

Craig said...

Don’t bet on that last sentence.

Stan said...

If I specify "Christian" as one who accepts the Bible as authoritative and authentic, I THINK it's true. (Where "I think" qualifies as weasel words.)

Craig said...

I thought simply calling yourself a Christian was all that is necessary. But, that just your opinion.