Taking roots in Greek and Roman cultures, then reappearing in the Renaissance, and now flourishing in the 21st century, humanism is the most logical step of revolt against God. Although many in these three societies claimed to believe in some type of deity outside themselves, their life practice ultimately contradicted their claim. In essence, humanism is the belief that man is God. The god of humanism attempts, but fails, in fulfilling each of the duties of godhead: defining origins, metaphysics, ethics, security, and truth.
First, humanism fails to give a satisfactory definition of man’s origins. Origins is the study of how all that exists came into being. A man’s beliefs concerning his origins defines how he will live life on this earth. By whom or what we were created or how we evolved defines who we are. Are we images of a creator, made for his glory; products of earth itself, to show forth her praises; or nothing more than an object of pure chance in a world of meaninglessness? Our identity as humans effects what we believe about metaphysics, ethics, security, and truth.
The human mind is unable of itself to describe where we came from, for we were not there. If we are the ultimate standard, how can we believe something we did not observe? If the human mind is capable of reaching truth, how can we tell what source has reached this capability? Furthermore, if the human mind can find truth of itself, why is there so much controversy over the origin of man? Without knowing where we came from we cannot define the other crucial elements of life.
Secondly, the metaphysics of humanism is flawed. Metaphysics is the study of reality. Without being able to observe anything past the material world, nor trust any sources that claim there is a spiritual realm, man cannot understand life as it is. The spiritual realm cannot be observed; it is a world of ideas and beings outside of the physical. Humanism cannot explain a realm outside of material objects. But without a world of ideas, how can we describe the actions and motives of those around us? For example, you might be able to see someone give his mother a hug. This action itself is not love, but only a manifestation of a concept called love. This idea cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or felt. The same goes for ideas such as justice, freedom, beauty, good, or evil. Without abstract concepts, a standard of ethics is impossible.
Next, humanism provides no basis for ethics. Ethics, the principles of right action, are foundational to any culture. Without some proper sense of morality, mankind would wipe each other out. An absolute standard of ethics cannot be found in man, for what one man thinks is right, another deems wrong. The serial killer in prison thought his actions just as acceptable as the lady who gives to charity. Neither can the State raise such a standard, for how many examples from history are there of governments committing horrible injustices? The church has no authority either to define ethics outside of the Word of God.
Yet many humanists do have a sense of ethics to some degree. This shows that they are not only being inconsistent with their beliefs, but that they are also made in the image of God and have His knowledge implanted in them. This knowledge, commonly referred to as a conscience, has been corrupted by the fall; nevertheless, it is still visible in all men. Calvin explains, “That there exists in the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with a sense of Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all man, being aware that there is a God, and he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service.” In addition, the god of humanism fails to provide genuine security (soteriology). Humanists argue that the solution to the world’s problems is proper education. The more we study the human mind, find great classical works, or pour money into the public school system they believe our problems will dissipate. Today the morale is just as high as ever despite the problems that are beginning to uproot our society. Just this year, Time Magazine announced their high ambition in its cover article, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” Yet this is not the direction we are heading despite the billions of dollars we as Americans have poured into the education system. On the contrary, our economic status has plummeted in the last five years, men are not grown up by thirty years of age according to Newsweek Magazine, and many of our medical institutions are moving towards exterminating the population through abortion and euthanasia rather than saving it.
Most importantly, humanism fails to define what all humankind seeks: epistemology or truth. The epistemological concerns of every scholar, clergy, and peasant, apart from the revelation of God, have come to naught. How can man’s mind discover what is is truthful and what is fallacious? Rene Descartes (1596-1650), French scholar and humanist philosopher, came to the conclusion that the way to determine truth was to doubt everything, until nothing more could be doubted. What was left would be truth. Descartes, over the course of his doubting, came to the conclusion, “I think, therefore I am.” However, Descartes failed to doubt his own existence in stating “I think,” presupposing the very premise he was attempting to prove. Descartes, along with all other humanists ultimately fall short of defining universal truth resulting in relativism.
This relativism, sometimes called “pluralism,” “tolerance,” or “co-existence”, is the basis of the modern dream of paradise. Yet to the United Nations, this idea is much more than a simple dream, it is the pathway to utopia. James Q. Wilson describes it thus,
“Many people have persuaded themselves that no law has any foundation in a widely shared sense of justice; each is the arbitrary enactment of the politically powerful. This is called legal realism, but it strikes me as utterly unrealistic. Many people have persuaded themselves that children will be harmed if they are told right from wrong; instead they should be encouraged to discuss the merits of moral alternatives. This is called values clarification, but I think it a recipe for confusion rather than clarity. Many people have persuaded themselves that it is wrong to judge the customs of another society since there are no standards a part form custom on which such judgments can rest; presumably they would oppose infanticide only if it involved their own child. This is sometimes called tolerance; I think a better name would be barbarism.”
Evidently, it is the Bible alone that remains the standard of origins, metaphysics, ethics, soteriology, and epistemology. It claims that, “…God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)” Furthermore, the spiritual kingdom is “…not in word, but in power.
(I Cor. 4:20)” It is the standard of all right and wrong. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for…instruction in righteousness. (II Tim. 3:16) It describes the way of salvation. “(Christ) gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God our Father. (Gal. 1:4)” And finally it claims, “…and Thy law is truth. (Ps. 119:142)”
Bibliography
Bahsen, Greg, Always Ready, 2004
Bahsen, Greg, Defending the Christian Worldview against all Opposition, 2006
Calvin, John, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1966
Dokoupil, Tony, “Why I am Leaving Guyland,” Newsweek Magazine, August, 2008
Grant, George, The Micah Mandate, 1999
Grossman, Kev, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal,” Time Magazine, February, 2011
Holy Bible, King James Version, 1964
Wilson, Nate, The Functions of Deity, 2010
