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?
The Bible, on the other hand, provides a set moral standard, with Jesus Christ as the model to follow. But humanism has no authority – no being higher than ourselves in any position of power. Hence humans are left to judge everything for themselves. I am free to claim that a humanist is immoral while they claim they are, because we are both right. There is nothing that makes one man’s word better than the next.
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.
You honestly are that Ken Ham type that blames all the world’s problems on Evolution? Not exactly. The world has had problems since the beginning when sin entered. It is rebellion against God that causes problems. Humanism is a byproduct of that. But what are we indoctrinating kids with at a young age (and reinforcing in college)? That human life has no value. When we are told that we are just animals, we value humans like we do animals. That is why I hear abortion supporters say that “we’re just animals” and “we’ll all die eventually.” This pro-abortion young man fully believed that human life begins at fertilization – it just didn’t matter to him because we’re no valuable. That’s why those who live a rather speciesist life themselves claim that pro-life people are speciesist for putting humans above animals.
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.
Then we look at full prisons and the vices of the day and wonder where we’ve went wrong. The diagnosis isn’t difficult: we’ve gotten away from the truth of the Bible and believed a lie. We’ve traded fixed morals for relativistic ones. We’ve given up God and championed a “survival of the fittest” mantra that we don’t even bring to fruition. The treatment is to trust in Jesus, the One Who shows us a truly moral, yea, perfect lifestyle. Stop with the double-standard of humanism and find the Truth.