A CRITIQUE OF SECULAR HUMANISM

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critique of secular humanism. The analysis will show that secular humanism holds five common tenets that are flawed. Specifically, this paper will provide a summary of the worldview, followed by a discussion of the flaws of the belief system, as well as a proposed plan for sharing the gospel of Christ with an individual who holds the worldview of secular humanism.

SUMMARY OF SECULAR HUMANISM

Although secular humanism comprises a diverse set of perspectives, certain commonalities exist within all its forms. Norman L. Geisler condenses the beliefs into five categories shared by all secular humanists, which include nontheism, naturalism, evolution, ethical relativism, and self-sufficiency.[1] The following briefly explores each of the shared beliefs in order to summarize the tenets of secular humanism.

First, nontheism denies the necessity of God in the creation or sustenance of humanity, and thus opposes a theistic worldview. Second, naturalism necessarily follows a nontheistic absence of supernatural intervention and claims that all life culminates from natural forces. The “Humanist Manifesto II” clearly communicates the first two tenets by proclaiming, “As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.”[2] Third, evolution is an inevitable consequence of naturalism and attempts to explain how natural forces generate life by evolving from simple life forms to complex life forms via natural selection. Specifically, “Humanism and Its Aspirations” declares, “Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”[3] Next, ethical relativism asserts that since evolution is the cause of human development, no ultimate authority exists, thus man’s morals are self-originated and evolve with humanity. Finally, self-sufficiency maintains that humankind has an innate capacity to sustain itself without God. The “Humanist Manifesto II” advances the assumption of self-sufficiency by claiming, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”[4]

FLAWS OF SECULAR HUMANISM

Numerous flaws are inherent within the commonly held beliefs of secular humanism summarized above. The flaws include experiential, scientific, epistemological, metaphysical, consistency, and evidential distortions. A short analysis of the major flaws of the five shared tenets of secular humanism provides a critique of the worldview.

First, although the nontheistic precept of secular humanism denies the necessity of God, the evidence of the secular humanist experience undermines the validity of the claim. Historically, prominent secular humanists admit the need for God in order to provide meaning to life while simultaneously refusing to believe God exists. For example, the secular humanist Jean-Paul Sartre recognizes the absurdity of life without God by admitting “atheism is…cruel.”[5] The nontheistic belief of secular humanists exhibits a significant practical flaw by claiming that God is not necessary while experiencing a desperate thirst for a deity that is purported not to exist.

The second tenet shared by secular humanism, naturalism, contains two significant flaws. First, the scientific principle of causality undermines naturalism as evidenced by the second law of thermodynamics that suggests the world is running down, and thus supports the origination of a finite universe. Second, science has proven the universe is constantly expanding, which also supports an origin of the universe. Williams Lane Craig reflects the logic that defies naturalism by explaining that what begins has a cause and since the universe began, it must have a cause.[6]

Third, the tenet of evolution consists of both scientific and epistemological flaws. Scientifically, no evidence of spontaneous generation of life exists. Even Charles G. Darwin admits life has “been originally breathed by the Creator.”[7] Furthermore, science provides no evidence of fossil records that show transitional life forms. Geisler suggests that evolutionists need “fossils with feathers and scales, or with fins…and legs.”[8] Epistemologically, secular humanists conclude man’s evolving brain cannot be trusted. Accordingly, the assumption that the brain is trustworthy enough to conclude evolutionary science is valid appears illogical.

Next, ethical relativism encompasses metaphysical and consistency flaws. Metaphysically, materialism underpins the proposition of ethical relativism. J. P. Moreland defines materialism as a view that a “physical, material cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be.”[9] Accordingly, moral absolutes are absent. However, a materialistic view is self-defeating, as the very ideas used to construct a materialistic theory do not consist of matter. Furthermore, inconsistency arises in an assumption that moral absolutes do not exist while simultaneously advancing a worldview with its own absolutes.

Finally, the tenet of self-sufficiency completely lacks evidence. The insufficiency of self-sufficiency is evident in man’s inability to conquer disease, control the environment, and effectively modify behavior. Geisler emphatically summarizes the absence of evidence declaring, “There is an unfounded arrogance about the social expectations of secular humanists.”[10]

SHARING THE GOSPEL

The identified flaws of the common tenets of secular humanism require a strong apologetic response. The following provides a plan for sharing the gospel with a secular humanist. Specifically, the plan advances a Christian worldview utilizing disarming, inquiry, and empathy in order to create a safe and intelligent environment to share the gospel.

First, it is critical for the apologist to understand the tenets of secular humanism including both its strengths and weaknesses in order to disarm the secular humanist. Paradoxically, admitting that certain convictions of secular humanism are beneficial can effectively disarm the interlocutor and allow a foundation of trust to begin. These beneficent traits may include an emphasis on education, freedom of thought, and support for the underprivileged as well as a desire to keep extreme forms of unorthodox religion in check.

Second, the apologist begins asserting the claims of Christianity by utilizing Socratic inquiry. The goal is to create an opportunity for discovery while maintaining an environment of trust. Regarding the tenet of nontheism, the inquiry needs to focus on why humanity exists, not how humanity exists, to break down the walls of nontheism. Additionally, questions regarding the potential benefits of suffering may be especially helpful for individuals struggling with the problem of evil. To refute the tenet of naturalism the same methodology is effective, but the goal is not to prove the supernatural, but to inquire whether it is possible the supernatural exists. Next, carefully addressing the issue of evolution by focusing the inquiry on the origin, not the development, of humanity is crucial. In addition, questions pertaining to why certain species still exist, why transitional fossils do not exist, and why Darwin assumed that an original Creator breathed life into the species are appropriate. Regarding ethical relativism, practical questions such an inquiry into the possibility that murder is never wrong if it does what is best for the murderer are effective. Finally, a refutation of self-sufficiency is possible by asking for evidence regarding humanity’s capacity to control external forces of the environment or individuals such as a spouse, highlighting the significant limitations of humanity.

Finally, the discussion requires a significant amount of empathy and prayer. By deeply understanding the individual’s perspective through intense listening and prayer that focuses more on the interlocutor than the apologist’s agenda, the Holy Spirit may prompt the individual to share intellectual and personal struggles. As the apologetic dialogue turns to a personal relationship, the odds increase that the discussion will provide additional opportunities for the apologist to continue sharing a gospel that frees the individual from the tyranny of the challenges of secular humanism.

CONCLUSION

The analysis has unequivocally shown numerous flaws of the five common tenets of secular humanism. The flaws include experiential, scientific, epistemological, metaphysical, consistency, and evidential defects. Furthermore, this paper provided a powerful method of sharing the gospel of Christ with an individual who holds a secular humanist worldview by utilizing disarming, inquiry, and empathy in conjunction with knowledge, prayer, and the power of the Holy Spirit.