The Secular Humanist Concept of Reason

The student presented a lesson entitled “The Secular Humanist Concept of Reason.”  Concerning reason, A Secular Humanist Declaration says
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science.  We are committed to the uses of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth.  Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction.  Although not so naïve as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind.  We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.[1]

A Statement in Defense of Secularism declared, “Secular humanists are committed to the use of reason, compassion, and science to enhance the human condition in this life.”[2]  Humanist Manifesto II says
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 science since the renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems.  But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue.  Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems.  Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.[3]

The humanists seem to imply that Christianity and reason are opposed to one another.  A Secular Humanist Declaration says, “We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science.”[4]  Again they say, “Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses.  There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself.”[5]

Contrary to secular humanist claims, reason and Christianity are not antithetical.  God made man in his own image (Gen. 1:27).  Certainly creation in God’s image involves reasoning ability.  God has great knowledge and rationality.  Isaiah queried, “Do you not know?  Have you not heard?  The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.  He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom” (Is. 40:28).[6]  God gave reasoning ability to man at the Creation.  No other creature on Earth has reasoning comparable to man’s ability.

God has used man’s reasoning ability to further his purpose.  Through Isaiah, God said, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as now; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool’” (Is. 1:18).  Since God appealed to reasoning, reasoning cannot be evil.

Certain passages of Scripture which place reasoning in a pejorative context.  “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate” (1 Cor. 1:19).  “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col. 2:8).  If God created reasoning, why do these texts speak of reasoning in such a negative light?  Simply because the reasoning of which Paul spoke was based upon human reasoning devoid of divine guidance.

There are numerous problems of the humanist concept of reason.  First, the humanists place far too much emphasis on reason.  Jeremiah declared, “I know, O LORD, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).  Humans may not realize their actual condition; Jesus said to the church at Laodicea, “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’  But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).

Several biblical characters did what made sense with their human faculties, but those decisions resulted in disaster.  Solomon, for example, married Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Ki. 7:8).  Solomon apparently made a politically expedient move in the marriage, for he made an alliance with a powerful nation.  But, Solomon’s marriage resulted in disaster.  Before the Israelites entered Canaan, Moses told God’s people, “Do not intermarry with them.  Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods” (Deut. 7:3-4).  Solomon’s case ended like Moses said it would: “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God” (1 Ki. 11:4).

Peter made a promise that made perfect sense; he told Jesus, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will” (Mt. 26:33).  Peter, of course, ended up denying the Lord and he even swore that he had no clue who the Nazarene fellow was.  Peter’s problem was that he could see neither what the future held nor how weak he himself would prove to be.

Because human reasoning is not a sufficient guide, God has provided Scripture.  “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path” (Ps. 119:105).  “We have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:19).

Many individuals have relied on divine revelation rather than human reasoning to guide their behavior.  When Abraham offered Isaac (Gen. 22:1-19), his act was anything but based on human reason.  From a human standpoint, Abraham’s action made little sense.  Isaac was Abraham’s only son, the son whom he loved (Gen. 22:2).  What would Abraham have told Sarah when he returned without Isaac?  What would Abraham have told his neighbors when they asked what had happened with Isaac?  What would Abraham’s neighbors have thought of this religious fanatic?  However, with divine revelation, Abraham’s action makes perfect sense – he was willingly obeying the Lord of the universe.

Gideon made an extremely foolish decisions based on human reasoning (Judg. 7).  Gideon had an army of 32,000 men (Judg. 7:3), but God had him narrow his army down to 300 (Judg. 7:7).  Yet, with those 300 men, God through Gideon overtook the Midianites (Judg. 7:22-25).  No earthly ruler would have made such a reasoned choice.  But, Gideon acted as he did because of divine revelation.

Do modern Christians not act in many ways that make little sense to the world?  Does the absence of instrumental music from the assembly really make sense apart from divine revelation?  Does not having a woman preacher really make sense apart from divine revelation?  Does Christian opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and other practices really make sense apart from divine revelation?

Because human reasoning is not a sufficient guide, not all truth can be known through human reasoning.  The humanists certainly imply that anything which is true can be known through reason.  “We are committed to the uses of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth.”[7]  “Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses.  There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself.”[8]

However, human reasoning cannot provide all truth.  Would Christians know that God is One yet is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by reason?  Would Christians know that God is a God of love by human reason?  Would Christians know that God is a holy God by human reason?  Just because human faculties are unable to ascertain all truth does not mean inaccessible truth does not exist.

The humanists are somewhat in a bind in what they say concerning reason.  Paul Kurtz said, “Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction.”[9]  Since Kurtz admits that human beings are prone to error, how can he be so certain that the principles governing inquiry are not all in error?  How does he know that everything he knows is not wrong?

Humanist Manifesto II calls for “the controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance,” to “be extended further in the solution of human problems.”  Do people really want scientific methods influencing human problems?  Francis Crick, for example said
We’ve just seen that the discussion as to how many people there should be in the world has now, as it were, become quite acceptable.  It is not acceptable, at the moment, to discuss who should be the parents of the next generation, who should be born, and who should have children.  There’s a general feeling that if we are all nice to each other and if everybody has 2.3 children, everything will pan out.  I don’t think that is true.  For good genetic reasons, even though you have more medical care, transplantation of organs, and all these things, it would be an unhealthy biological situation.  Some group of people should decide that some people should have more children and some should have fewer. . . . You have to decide who is to be born.[10]

José M. Delgado of Yale University has been using sensors in the brains of monkeys and human epileptics to control their behavior.  Delgado says that future society will be controlled by electrical stimulation in the brain.[11]  Is that really the type of society that should be considered?  Physicist J. D. Bernal predicted that after the rise of the proletariat and the rise of the classless society, humanity still had to go through one more stage before humans would truly reach utopia.[12]  That stage?  An aristocracy of scientific intelligence.  Bernal even believes that scientists will evolve into a superior human species and leave humans behind.  Is that truly progress?
_______________

[1] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 19-20.

[2] A Statement In Defense of Secularism.

[3] Humanist Manifest II, Fourth.

[4] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 19.

[5] Humanist Manifesto II, Fourth.

[6] Emphasis added

[7] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 19.

[8] Humanist Manifesto II, Fourth.

[9] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 19-20

[10] Quoted in Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? Labret 50th Anniversary ed. (Wheat.on, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 234.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live? With Nancy Pearcey (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999).