http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/religiousecular.htm 2/9/2007 12:41 PM.
The answer to that question depends entirely upon how one defines the key terms. Many secular humanists use essentialist definitions of religion; this means that they identify some basic belief or attitude as comprising the “essence” of religion. Everything that has this attribute is religion, and everything that doesn’t cannot possibly be a religion.
The most commonly cited “essence” of religion involves supernatural beliefs, whether supernatural beings, supernatural powers, or simply supernatural realms.
Because they also define humanism as fundamentally naturalistic, the conclusion follows that humanism itself cannot be religious — it would be a contradiction for a naturalistic philosophy to include the belief supernatural beings.
Under this conception of religion, religious humanism could be thought of as existing in the context of religious believers, like Christians, who incorporate some humanist principles into their world view. It might be better, however, to describe this situation as a humanistic religion (where a pre-existing religion is influenced by humanist philosophy) than as a religious humanism (where humanism is influenced to be religious in nature).
As useful as essentialist definitions of religion are, they are nevertheless very limited and fail to acknowledge the breadth of what religion involves for actual human beings, both in their own lives and in their dealings with others. In effect, essentialist definitions tend to be “idealized” descriptions which are handy in philosophical texts, but have limited applicability in real life.
Perhaps because of this, religious humanists tend to opt for functional definitions of religion, which means that they identify what appears to be the purpose of function of religion (usually in a psychological and/or sociological sense) and use that to describe what religion “really” is.
Humanism as a Functional Religion
The functions of religion often used by religious humanists include things like fulfilling the social needs of a group of people and satisfying personal quests to discover meaning and purpose in life. Because their humanism constitutes both the social and personal context in which they seek to reach such goals, they quite naturally and reasonably conclude that their humanism is religious in nature — hence, religious humanism.
Unfortunately, functional definitions of religion are not much better than essentialist definitions. As is pointed out so often by critics, functional definitions are often so vague that they might apply to absolutely any belief system or shared cultural practices. It simply will not work if “religion” comes to be applied to just about everything, because then it won’t really be useful for describing anything.
So, who is right — is the definition of religion broad enough to allow for religious humanism, or is this actually just a contradiction in terms? The problem here lies in the assumption that our definition of religion must be either essentialist or functional.
By insisting on one or the other, the positions become unnecessarily polarized. Some religious humanists assume that all humanism is religious (from a functional perspective) while some secular humanists assume that no humanism can be religious in nature (from an essentialist perspective).
I wish I could offer a simple solution, but I cannot — religion itself is much too complex of a subject to lend itself to a simple definition that might produce a resolution here. When simplistic definitions are attempted, we only end up in the morass of disagreement and misunderstanding that we witness above.
All I can offer is the observation that, very often, religion is defined in a highly personal and subjective manner. There are objectively discernible qualities which are common to religions and which we can describe, but in the end, which of those qualities take precedence will vary from system to system and from person to person.
Because of that, we must allow that what we describe as the basis and essence of our religion cannot necessarily comprise the basis and essence of another’s religion — thus, a Christian cannot define “religion” for a Buddhist or a Unitarian. For the exact same reason, those of us who have no religion also cannot insist that one thing or another must necessarily comprise the basis and essence of a religion — thus, secular humanists cannot define “religion” for a Christian or a Religious Humanist. At the same time, though, religious humanists also cannot “define” secular humanism as a religion for others.
If humanism is religious in nature for someone, then that is their religion. We can question whether they are defining things coherently. We can challenge whether their belief system can be adequately described by such terminology. We can critique the specifics of their beliefs and whether they are rational. What we cannot readily do, however, is assert that, whatever they might believe, they cannot really be religious and humanists.
Christian Reactions to Secular Progressives 2007: Bill O'Reilly has revealed to the nation that secular progressives have a 'very secret plan' to 'diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A.' It's clear that he isn't clever enough to have connected the dots and figured this out on his own, so someone must have talked. We have a traitor in our midst who must be found and dealt with immediately!
O’Reilly said these three elements operate “in tandem”: O’REILLY: [Y]ou use your left-wing smear websites to go after anybody who stands up for Christmas. If you stand up for Christmas, they come after you. So the tandem intimidates. The tandem intimidates. Suing on one hand; smearing on the other hand.
http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/religiousecular_2.htm 2/9/2007 12:42 PM.
The result? According to O’Reilly: O’REILLY: In every secular progressive country, they’ve wiped out religion ... Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, all of them. That’s the first step. Get the religion out of there, so that we can impose our big-government, progressive agenda.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/227262.htm 2/9/2007 11:10 AM.
It appears that O’Reilly has been provided very detailed information about the future secular take-over of America. He may even know about the secret re-education facilities we are building for Christians and the black helicopters that are being used to keep an eye on people like O’Reilly himself. I warned headquarters that we needed to have a monitoring device implanted in O’Reilly’s butt, but they said that he was too looney for anyone to ever take seriously. Sadly, it looks like my concerns are being proven true. We’ll have to act quickly in order to stop the damage from spreading too far.
And if you happen to be reading this without authorization, please remain calm and stay where you are — some nice men in black suits will be along shortly to take care of you.
Humanist Metaphysics: Humanism, Nature, and the Supernatural?
What sort of metaphysical beliefs do humanists have? Humanists don't really have a metaphysical outlook because humanists don't normally accept the existence of anything which isn't a part of nature (or, if they do, they don't believe that it is 'more real' than our own existence). Humanists are essentially naturalists, explaining the nature of reality in naturalistic and materialistic terms. It is, though, worth examining how humanists address claims about the existence of non-natural beings. As a general principle, humanists are not particularly concerned with anything that might qualify as “the supernatural.” Most humanists reject the existence of the supernatural entirely, but there is nothing self-contradictory about a person who is both a humanist and who believes in something that might qualify as supernatural. What is a problem for humanism is not so much belief in something that is supernatural but the reliance upon the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism for the universe, for life, for existence, for humanity, for morality, etc. Such a reliance is rather common in human cultures generally and human religions specifically; the rejection of the supernatural as a means to explain anything, on the other hand, is an important characteristic of humanism. One of the Affirmations of Humanism is:
”We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.”
Study Questions:
Q: why do so many promote their beliefs using safe theological language?
A: they want to seduce American youth who in large numbers believe in a God of some kind.
A: Secular Humanists are atheists. They do not believe in the existence of a supernatural Supreme Being.
A: Christianity however believes in One personal/supreme God who is Creator & Lord of everything that exists. He eternally exists as Triune God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Gen. 1; Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19.
Q: who is the founder of this world view?
A: Founder: While Secular Humanism has no authoritative key figures in history, there have been several influential Humanists. Examples of influential Humanists are such people as: John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Joseph Fletcher, Margaret Sanger, and Stephen Jay Gould.
Q: what do they use for authority in their lives?
A: Humanists reject supernatural beliefs and doctrines. There are no holy writings in Secular Humanism.
Q: where do they believe we all came from?
A: Humanity: Man is a part of nature. Humanity controls its own destiny since there is no God.
Q: what "ethical system" do secular progressives follow?
A: Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no supernatural sanction.
A: Humanists believe that many of humanity's problems are caused by ignorance, lack of education, and outdated beliefs in the supernatural.
A: Many Humanists believe that the human condition can be improved by using science and its methods of criticism to understand the universe.
Q: what do they believe happens to all men when they die?
A: Secular Humanists believe that there is no life after death. They deny that there is a soul or spirit that survives death.
Q: as more and more of our society become energized by this system why do we see such a rise in angry, bitter, violent behavior?
A: they turn to Darwin and Freud just as Hitler and other secular progressive leaders have done in the past.
Q: as we see more and more people sharing opinions in the blogs today how can we spot members of this group?
A: they want to limit free speech by using threats to try and silence people who disagree with them. Get a copy of Hitler's founding book as it illustrates how to grow and train a group of "brown shirts" that go around and violently silence all who would disagree. At first they used legal methods. After they had no success we see them using riots and violence. Is it dangerous for a country to loose its freedom?
Study Germany's history because so youth in America today are falling into those same old traps.
Problems:
1. The claim that all morals & values are relative is first of all self-contradictory, because it is stated as an absolute. There is also the problem of the inability of man to live consistently with it. All men including humanists hold for absolute values. Will the secular humanist admit that there is nothing necessarily (or absolutely) wrong with rape and murder of a three year old girl? Also be aware of the biblical problem with conflicting moral values and with the best answers available.
2. To the humanist there is no ultimate meaning to life. Yet no one lives in harmony with this view. The humanist is forced to live as if his life matters, thus belying his own belief. We can be sure that the humanist will not hesitate to point out where the Christian is inconsistent with his/her faith!
3. In view of the plausibility of the existence of God, it becomes difficult to see why such energy is expended trying to deny Him. It is often possible to show that the secular humanist is more interested in autonomy in the moral area than in discovering truth.
Help in 2008
Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed DVD
ww.expelledthemovie.com 8/15/2008 8:32 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment