Everyone wants to believe they
are moral. We know that, according to the Bible, none of us actually are good
people, and we only know right from wrong with our God-given consciences.
Therefore, morals are fairly
obvious to us. There are a number of things that, save a handful of
psychopaths, all people would agree are wrong. But this poses a huge problem to
those who deny the Bible’s authenticity and inspiration.
Humanists, whether atheist,
agnostic, etc., who deny the Bible’s authenticity as well as God’s power, are
faced with this problem. Their very own beliefs undermine their, well, beliefs.
You see, you will scarcely find
a humanist who does not believe he is a good person. Obviously, being his own
god, he considers himself to be a standard-bearer of morality. But he is
lacking two things to make such a claim: the standard for morality, and a
fundamental belief to back up his claim.
Morals have to have a fixed
guideline. The only alternative is relativistic morals, which, as I will get to,
is exactly what humanism screams of. Biblical Christians have no problem with
this – we believe that God gives us a conscience and the Bible explains
guidelines, and specifics, of how to conduct our lives.
But for those who don’t believe
the Bible (whether a part of it or the whole thing), there is no standard.
There may be a claim to a standard, but the very notion of a fixed truth
violates the rules of humanism’s relative morality. Even ethical theories of
various sorts are only made by men, and offer no reason why they should be
believed over any other theory. In fact, if man is not constrained by God,
ethical theories are pointless. Why should we value life? We’re simply another
animal. We were created in a cosmic accident; how can life that is accidentally
created suddenly be given value?
Moral relativism speaks for
itself. Whatever you make off-limits to yourself is your business, but don’t
dare tell me what to do. “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” “Don’t like
homosexuality, don’t do it.” But steal a humanist’s wallet, and suddenly there
is a problem.
Which springboards into the
issue at the very heart of humanism. What makes things like stealing, rape, and
murder wrong? Don’t get me wrong, I believe they are very much wrong, as would
most humanists. But let’s follow this worldview to its expected and frightening
end.
Humanism, by definition, submits
itself to no one. We call our own shots. We place our value on what we will. This
devalues human life.
The Bible tells us that humans
are created in the image of God and were placed on Earth to keep it and subdue
it. That gives humans the upmost value, which the Bible reinforces with rules
regarding the treatment of each other. Humanism tells us that humans are just
another stage of evolution. We are no different than a primate or fish or
amebae – just further advanced. We are taught in public schools that humans are
just animals. No wonder our country has so many problems. The worldview being
pushed on us cannot account for why we should treat each other fairly, other
than the benefit to oneself.

I was talking to a friend about
abortion several years back, and in trying to show that he too values human
life above animal life, I asked him, “Would you kill your dog to feed your
starving child, or kill your child to feed your starving dog?” He replied, “Depends
on who I’m closer to.” Many individuals have been reduced to a self-centered
philosophy that value themselves so much that nothing else, not even human
life, can be allowed to interfere with them. Matt Walsh calls it the “Mighty Me”
mentality. It’s why one woman on a college campus said she needed abortion “because
my vagina is too pretty for a fetus to crawl out of it.” Humanism bankrupts
morality by its refusal to acknowledge God as creator and gauge of basic right
and wrong. The Bible tells us we as humans are immensely valuable. Humanism has
no grounds and really no desire to claim this.
Still don’t believe me? One of
the core beliefs of the humanist religion (it has every aspect necessary) and
one of its pillars of faith, Evolution, is the “survival of the fittest”. This
is true to an extent in the animal kingdom, though it factors out something
such as, say, family. Environment. Accidents. But it is somewhat accurate when
nature is left to itself. However, in humanity (which, as we’ve figured out, is
considered simply part of the animal kingdom), the theory is off. A lot. Humans
have conscious thought, a God-given conscience to tell them what is wrong, and
the ability to have compassion.
But in a “survival of the
fittest” culture, there is no room for compassion. Consciences must be seared.
And when we follow this theory, anything can be justified.
How about the elderly? Grandma
getting too old? If we take care of her, that breaks with the way things are
supposed to be. The weak are supposed to die off. Don’t take care of her, let
her fend for herself. If she can’t, she shouldn’t be around anyway.
“That’s absurd, people would
never do that.” No, usually that is more motivated by greed than being
cognizant of a dangerous theory. But you make a valid point. Few people would
simply let a relative die rather than take care of them. But that is not
“survival of the fittest.” And now we see that the humanist religion has what
is claims all other religions have – hypocrisy.
Let’s continue to follow the
path of Evolution. If I rob your house while you are gone, we would probably
consider that wrong. (Even if you would justify that and anything else to
prevent appearing inconsistent – such as the Holocaust – deep down you would
rightfully be upset.) But why is it wrong? I thought it was okay. And if we are
looking at “survival of the fittest”, I guess you should have stayed home and
protected your house. But you didn’t, so too bad.
What makes rape so wrong? The
rapist was more fit than the victim; he’s just following nature.
How about murder? Under
Evolution, the most fit just happens to have a knife, or a gun, or was stronger
than the victim so he could strangle them.
You say it’s ridiculous that I
would even go there, because nearly everyone thinks these examples are wrong.
You’re missing the point just made. An Evolutionist believes we decide our own
morals (or society, a collection of individuals) but are angry when someone
wrongs them. They believe the fittest survive while the weak die off but are
upset when it is put into action. I’m seeing a major double-standard. They
believe humans aren’t special but would kill a spider and not a person.
Some readers, at least those
who are humanists, have probably ignored the intended message because they
believe I am saying they are completely immoral people who would murder someone
without guilt. As I said before, no one is moral. “As it is written, there is
no righteous, no, not one:” (Romans 3:10). But I do not believe most humanists would
ever steal or rape or murder. But that’s just my point. These people wouldn’t
dare to do those things, but have bought into a theory that says there’s
nothing wrong with it.

No comments:
Post a Comment