The Secular Humanist Concept of Religious Skepticism

The student delivered a lesson entitled “The Secular Humanist Concept of Religious Skepticism.”  Concerning religious skepticism, Kurtz declared
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims.  We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings.  We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural.  We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. . . . We find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. . . . [Secular humanists] reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few, or that he can save or redeem sinners.  They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation.  We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter-day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations.  We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. . . . In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true.  Religions have made negative as well as positive contributions toward the development of human civilization.  Although they have helped to build hospitals and schools and, at their best, have encouraged the spirit of love and charity, many have also caused human suffering by being intolerant of those who did not accept their dogmas or creeds.  Some religions have been fanatical and repressive, narrowing human hopes, limiting aspirations, and precipitating religious wars and violence.  While religions have no doubt offered comfort to the bereaved and dying by holding forth the promise of an immortal life, they have also aroused morbid fear and dread.  We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable “soul” or that it exists before birth or survives death.[1]

Humanist Manifesto I declares, “Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage.”[2]  Again, that document declares, “We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of ‘new thought.’”[3]  Humanist Manifesto II says
We believe, however, that traditional 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.  Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.  We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common.  But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities.  Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities.  Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others.  Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage.[4]

The Humanist Manifesto II again states,
Promises of immoral 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.[5]

The student began a critique of religious skepticism by exploring the philosophical problems inherent in the view.  The student first dealt with the claim that religions have done a great disservice to mankind.  Granted, many religious movements have greatly harmed mankind.  Because of the beliefs of some Islamic fanatics, some 3,000 American citizens were killed on September 11, 2001.  Because of the beliefs of some Islamic and Christian fanatics, the Crusades cost many lives.  Because of the beliefs of some, the Spanish Inquisition sought to impose beliefs by force.

However, neither secular humanists nor the fanatics mentioned above properly understood Scripture.  Jesus never advocated violence.  In the Sermon on the Mount, he said,
You have heard that it was said, “Love you neighbor and hate your enemy.”  But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?  Are not even the tax collectors doing that?  And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more that others?  Do not even pagans do that?  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:43-48).

Jesus practiced those words when his own life was in jeopardy.  When Peter cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus said, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Mt. 26:52-53).  Jesus could have stopped his crucifixion by force, but he chose not to do so, and he even healed one of those who had come to arrest him.

New Testament writers also taught that one should not take matters into his own hands.  “Do not repay anyone evil for evil.  Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.  Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath” (Rom. 12:17-19).  The author of Hebrews exhorted his readers: “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy” (Heb. 12:14).

Just because some have used religion to create an atmosphere of strive does not negate Jesus’ teachings.  The truthfulness of what Jesus taught does not depend on how well one obeys his teachings.  What Jesus taught is true whether or not individuals obey.

Next, the student discussed the claim that placing divine law above human needs and interest does a disservice to mankind.  Clearly, if one wants to do whatever he pleases, divine laws which instruct him how to live and think are going to do him a great disservice.  However, divine law serves a great purpose.  Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27); God understood that man needed rest, and thus he created the Sabbath, not to restrict man but for man’s own good.  Law also teaches right from wrong: “I would not have known what sin was except through the law.  For I would not have know what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet’” (Rom. 7:7).  Divine commands are also necessary to restrain the actions of the evil: “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers” (1 Tim. 1:9).

The student then focused on the claim that the existence of the supernatural “is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.”[6]  Claiming that God is irrelevant allows individuals to ignore what God has said.  However, Scripture does have all the answers for this life.  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).[7]  “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us” (2 Pet. 1:3).[8]  Just how relevant is Scripture?  What if a neighbor wrongs a believer?  Scripture tells the believer what action to take (e.g., Mt. 18:15-17).  How should a believer treat his or her spouse?  Scripture provides guidelines (Eph. 5:22-33).  Should the believer do 75 in a 65 zone?  Scripture gives the answer (Rom. 13:1).

The student then focused on the claim that, “Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.”[9]  That statement is terribly egotistical.  What the humanists say is “We don’t have all knowledge, but we’re intelligent enough to know that there is no God.  Whatever else we learn, we will not find God.”  How can the humanists be so certain?  The only way secular humanists could be certain there is no God was if they had all knowledge, something they themselves admit they lack.

The student turned attention to evidence for God’s existence.  He began the discussion of God’s existence by speaking of man’s moral capacity.[10]  Although some deny the existence of absolute morality, nearly every society has some moral standards which are considered unchangeable.  For example, most all societies would consider murder morally wrong, at least murder contrasted with killing in war, execution, and the like.  But, why should societies consider murder wrong if there is not a moral absolute which makes the taking of life wrong?  Cats think nothing of killing a snake or a bird or a mouse.  Why should the taking of human life be viewed any differently if humans have not been endowed with a moral compass?

The student then discussed the beginning of the universe.[11]  One is confronted with only two options for the universe’s existence: the universe began at a set point in time, or the universe is eternal.  But, the universe had to have a beginning.  The amount of hydrogen in the cosmos requires a beginning.[12]  Stars, including the sun, burn hydrogen.  The earth’s sun is only about halfway through a star’s lifecycle.  Stars cannot burn hydrogen forever, yet hydrogen abounds in the universe.  Thus, the universe could have not existed forever, or hydrogen would have been depleted.

The second law of thermodynamics also requires a beginning.[13]  The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system, things go from an orderly state to a disorderedly state.  In other words, things run down.  If an individual buys a brand new car, all shinny and perfect, what will that car look like in ten years?  The car is not going to run as well, the car is going to rust, and the car is going to deteriorate.  However, a car is not a closed system – gas it put into the vehicle, the oil is changed, and new tires are added.  From an atheistic standpoint, the universe is a closed system (i.e., there is nothing outside the cosmos to act upon it).  If that is the case and the universe has existed forever, the universe should be totally dark, cold, and devoid of all energy.  Yet that is not the case (although the universe is slowing down).  From a Christian standpoint, of course, the universe is not a closed system – God is both outside and above the universe.

The Big Bang also requires a beginning.[14]  In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies appeared redder than the light should have appeared; Hubble concluded that the light appeared redder, for the galaxies were moving away from earth.[15]  Hubble continued his investigation and discovered that not only is the universe expanding, but the cosmos is expanding the same in all directions.  The logical conclusion is that if one goes back far enough in time – probably about 15 billion years – he comes to a point where absolutely nothing exists.

But, could the Big Bang have been the result of forces which have nothing to do with God?  In other words, could the Big Bang have just occurred?  Obviously, the atheist has no other alternative, and there are many who take that route.  Yet when one examines the universe, he has difficulty in arriving at a conclusion other than that the universe was designed for the purpose of man’s existence.  The solar system is just the right position in the Milky Way for life to exist.[16]  The earth’s solar system is outside the central bulge of the galaxy; however, if the earth were closer to the galaxy’s center, the gravitational forces would be far too great for the solar system to exist.

The earth’s distance from the sun is absolutely critical to life’s existence.[17]  The planet Venus is much like the Earth; however, Venus is closer to the sun and has a slow, backward rotation.  The planet’s proximity to the sun and her rotation have resulted in a layer of sulfuric acid hovering over the planet and ground temperatures near 900 degrees Fahrenheit.  Water is extremely crucial for the survival of life.  Yet, if the Earth were any closer to the sun, all water would be vapor.  If the Earth were any further from the sun, all water would be ice.  In either case, life would be impossible.

The earth’s tilt is also absolutely crucial to life’s existence.[18]  The Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun when the Earth is furthest from the sun (the Northern Hemisphere’s summer) and tilted away from the sun when the Earth is closest to the sun (the Northern Hemisphere’s winter).  Why is that significant?  Most of the landmass on Earth is in the Northern Hemisphere, and the Southern Hemisphere is largely covered by water.  Water absorbs and releases heat more slowly than land.  Thus, as the earth is closest to the sun, most of the Earth’s water reflects the heat, and what is not reflected is transported to the colder Northern Hemisphere by way of the ocean currents.  If this were not the case, winters would be much colder and summers much hotter.

The electron’s electric charge is also absolutely crucial to life’s existence.[19]  If the electron’s electric charge were only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or the stars would have exploded.  About the electron’s electric charge, Stephen Hawking, one of the foremost theoretical physicists of the current age, said, “One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.”[20]
_______________

[1] Kurtz, Humanist Declaration, 17-19.

[2] Humanist Manifesto I, Fourth.

[3] Ibid., Sixth.

[4] Humanist Manifesto II, First.

[5] Ibid., Second.

[6] Humanist Manifesto II, First.

[7] Emphasis added.

[8] Emphasis added.

[9] Humanist Manifesto II, First.

[10] William C. Davis, “Theistic Arguments,” in Reason for the Hope Within ed by Michael J. Murray (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 20-46.

[11] See William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994) for a discussion of the cosmological argument.

[12] John Clayton, The Source With Nils Jansma (West Monroe, LA: Howard Publishing, 2001).

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Craig, Reasonable Faith.

[16] Clayton, The Source.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time Updated and Expanded ed.  (New York, Bantam Books, 1996).

[20] Ibid., 160-161.