Is it science, or something else? This is an excellent topic for debate in relation to the discussions that I have thus far encountered here. I want to assure the reader that what the PhDs have been teaching the readers of this forum from what I have encountered is about as far from science as a lightning bug is from lighting. In fact, their tenets are not science but simply another religion cloaked and disguised as science.
Webster’s Dictionary would define secular humanism something like this: "Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate."
Secular Humanism has been around as long as man himself. But in the past it certainly has not been the organized movement we have observed with this doctrine over the last thirty years or so, especially in the Western world.
Its roots and dogmas can be found in the musings of theorists as far back as classical Greek philosophers such as the Stoics and Epicureans as well as in Chinese Confucianism.
In short, and just like the version of Secular Humanism today, these philosophical views looked to human beings rather than gods to solve mankind’s problems.
In our modern age, Secular Humanism is a worldview. Is it another religion? Yes.
In fact, certain Secular Humanists will openly admit that they are following a religion. It’s just a religion that rejects all gods and places man front and foremost as the semi-divine ruler of the cosmos.
In the Humanist Manifesto, Secular Humanism is candidly defined as a religion: Humanism is A philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.
Most Secular Humanists will openly admit that they are atheists having no belief at all in the concept of God or gods. But even if we view Humanism as a mere body of thought, when this philosophy is combined with atheism, it becomes a very real religion.
Faith may be defined as a belief in something where there is no physical, forensic evidence to support that belief.
I believe in my God. But I certainly could never be silly enough to employ a CAT scan to show you my soul. I could not ask my internist to find the Holy Spirit living in my heart with his stethoscope. I won’t even bother trying to beam you down pictures of God via the C.O.B.E satellite. I believe in God although there is certainly no physical evidence I can show you that He exists. Yes, I’m a religious type of guy.
How then, is an active belief system that dogmatically espouses that God does NOT exist any different? There is certainly no evidence that an atheist can show me proving there is no God. Therefore, the atheist, just as I, has formed a belief system utilizing no forensic evidence to support it. And if my positive belief in God is a religion, then the belief in the negative is just as surely a religion. The atheist steps out on faith just as I do.
Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe."
Corliss Lamont seems to agree and puts it rather succinctly: Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.
Secular humanism, then, is a mortal and temporal philosophy which brushes aside the concept of gods and centers upon human concerns.
The typical Humanist might relate that rational thought and the scientific method is employed to address the trials and torments of human beings. Not some silly god concept. And to accomplish this viewpoint, Secular Humanism espouses commitment to its own set of principles which seek to promote development of tolerance and compassion among its adherents utilizing the methods of science, old fashioned brain-power via critical analysis, and philosophical rumination.
So what is wrong with climbing into the scientific method, fresh ideas, critical reason, factual evidence, and objective reality and utilizing these methods to govern one’s actions?
Nothing, if that person is looking for a cure for cancer, but everything if one is seeking those things spiritual; because objective reality is simply the antithesis of spiritual perception.
Is there any Christian naive enough to think that his surgeons actually saw Jesus Christ living in his heart when he had that faulty aortic valve replaced on the operating table? No, because the spiritual realm cannot be viewed with the eyes but must be examined introspectively through the spirit.
I have discovered a common thread among Secular Humanists, from all over the world, after years of conversing with them and debating them over the Internet. The Humanists that are into philosophy seem to lionize the writings of philosopher Karl Popper.
Popper was a thinker and I enjoy his work as well but vehemently disagree with some of his conclusions. Popper’s thinking was instrumental in revising our scientific theories and separating theory out of the specter of law.
Popper mused that truth should not be deduced from theory simply because a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing. And even though we might acknowledge that such a theory has received a high measure of validation; and may be conditionally retained, it is still only the best available theory until it is falsified (if it is ever falsified), or until it is superseded by a better theory.
Popper further mused that truth is objective reality. Objective reality must be able to withstand falsification and must be able to be falsified if evidence to falsify it comes into the scenario. Further, objective reality is observable by any independent observer who wishes to do so.
Want to show that there is a moon in the sky? Not a problem. Just bring in all of the independent observers who have seen the moon. The astronomers who have studied it via telescope will also be useful. The men who have walked on the moon will be invaluable in showing its existence. Finally, any person who wants to look up in the sky and see the moon for him self is quite welcomed to do so.
The fact that a moon exists is objective reality and solid, indisputable truth.
*BUZZER* No tid-bit of philosophy could be more wrong or further from realism if we grasp Popper’s assertion that this is the solitary way to discern truth.
The fact is that there exists another phenomenon that I term subjective reality and it is just as real a truth as is objective reality.
Subjective reality is just the opposite from objective reality and can be just as authentic truistically to an individual as its antithesis, yet not observable or subject to falsification by anyone but me.
Do I love my wife? Think so? Prove it using Popper’s objective reality. You can ask me, but I’ll lie to you. So, you notice how kind I am to her and you think this denotes love? Nope. I just have learned that this is the best way to keep peace in the family. I do love the kids and want to father them for the rest of my life. So, isn’t this in my best interest to just pretend I love my wife?
The fact is that whatever I feel about my wife is very real and absolute truth to me, yet this truth is not objective reality because no one but me can observe this phenomenon in order to deduce this truth. And try to falsify it. You can’t. Does this mean that my true feelings and intentions are not true just because you can’t observe them?
What is my favorite color? I will lie to you if you ask me and all of those blue suits I wear are just to fool you.
What are my moral standings? The truth is that I stand for affirmative action. But I will not admit this to you because the position is so unfavorable politically. So, prove, using the objective reality criteria, that internally I either do, or do not, support affirmative action. What is truth on this issue?
Get my drift? There can be a very real truth that cannot withstand the forensic process. The concept of my God falls under the label of subjective reality. It’s there. It’s real. It’s solid, inarguable truth to me. But there is nothing objective about it.
Most prevalent in American society is the fomenting of this body of thought called Secular Humanism throughout our schools. This religion dominates our schools when there is an active lobby by the same group of people to keep religion out of our schools.
No, Secular Humanism is not science, but their henotheistic god is science governing several other lesser gods that encompass the foremost religion.
Erwin Schrodinger, one of the greatest Nobel winning physicists of all time once stated: I'm very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.
Amen, Erwin. I can’t take the arguments of Secular Humanists seriously at all. Why? Because we shall soon see that their misguided ‘science’ is not science at all but pseudo-science that violates the most basic theories and laws of the real McCoy. Let’s take them on in their own subject: a god called science. That is, if they are not afraid to debate us. Scott?????
™ Version 4.2