Monthly Archives: December 2013

Where does Morality come from?

Posted on by
3

There is intrigue about morality. Unless there is a psychopathic disorder, everyone has a moral sense. It seems to be a universal ability but why do we need morality, perhaps a unique trait in the world of living things?

In our search for morality as a human condition, we must omit those moral behaviors that are induced by groups. This will be hard to do because many “moral” actions by more than one person, for example religion, charities, corporations, mobs, the military, in fact, any group action that has a predetermined purpose for its moral behavior, does not accurately measure the source of morality. Group acts are salted heavily with cultural conditioning and prejudice. So clouded are the definitions that even one person’s apparent behavior is heavily salted.

The mariner would like to press beyond surface definitions such as, “virtue,” “conformity to ideals of right human conduct” and “since each person is raised differently with very diverse experiences, each person has a unique definition of morality and ethical beliefs.” More directly, it is the personal ability to possess morality rather than the behavior that is measured socially. What inside an individual enables morality?

Just as secular groups have prejudice and predetermined expectation of behavior, religious organizations do as well. Religious groups have taken the position that morality is related to Godliness in some way or can be acquired by following rules of behavior cited in religious literature. While the objectives of religion promote goodness more than secular groups, still having preset objectives means that religious organizations are prejudiced.

It was author Graham Greene who said, “Christians can’t steal all the virtues…. Even the caveman wept to see another’s tears.” His comment suggests that moral ability has been part of our species for a long time.

If morality is not based on cultural prejudices, what is left?

Dachel Keltner, The director of the Berkeley Social Interaction Laboratory, who recently published “Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life,” suggests that compassion and empathy are genetically embedded in our genome and are the reason Homo sapiens morality is a central element to the success of the human race. If the reader wants further information without buying the book, Keltner talks about the content of his book on the Internet at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRRXRlddibg

Keltner builds a case against the common position that depends heavily on Freud and Kant, which says human behavior is a negative, defensive response, one that is motivated to avoid bad things and that this drives the human psyche rather than positive behaviors like empathy and compassion.

We are left with a decision to accept Keltner’s examination of compassion and empathy as a genetic role that is the salvation of humanity versus the idea that human behavior is a reactive defense system designed to optimize success.

Interestingly, this choice seems familiar. In capitalism, success is a negative action that takes advantage of a situation where someone else will pay the price that assures success. This proves to be a successful economic strategy across the planet. However, just because the capitalistic model works for some, does that means it is good for the survival of the species? This is a deep question. The reader should note that the capitalist model concentrates wealth for the few while the population gives up its capital to assure that wealth.

Is wealth of the few a guarantee for the evolving human race? History suggests that the accumulation of uncontrolled wealth eventually leads to a breakdown of society. Cyclical breakdowns of society indicates an unstable function among the species. A less selfish model for sharing resources, that is, a model based on compassion and empathy as Keltner suggests, may in the end, lead to an improved human species.

Let’s leave it there for the moment. Ponder the powerful short term advantages of a negative reactive behavior, which has its financial merits, versus a positive behavior driven by compassion and empathy, which has long term stability.

Ancient Mariner

Merry Christmas

Posted on by
Reply

2013 candles

Happy holidays, Readers, even a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The television schmaltz is actually correct for a change: Relax in any manner you can. Join the spirit of the season. Make room for family in some manner, whether near or far. Prepare a treat you would not ordinarily prepare. Take a day to go somewhere that has been on your list for some time. Visit or call that long lost cousin four states away.

Some of us are alone, ill or incapacitated.  Still, one can find a peaceful spot inside; there is a lifetime of memories if nothing else. A relative of the mariner used to visit the grave of her father and mother some time during the holidays. Christmas is sharing life, memories, joy.

Christmas is not all flash and boxes. The gifts are a metaphor for birth and the life that follows. It is not a time for depression or loneliness; it is a time for self-actualization. No matter how old or alone one is, there is an ability to celebrate one’s unique experiences, finding a satisfied wisdom that younger folks cannot fathom.

Find someone singing Christmas carols. It can be a church service, in the mall, on television or radio. The church carols are timeless and comforting.

Many have feelings of inadequacy when trying to find a gift for someone. When the mariner was in Taiwan, he learned that gifts were given on any occasion, for Chinese New year, Christmas and even a friendly visit. The gifts were not expensive. In fact, many had been passed around before; the wrapping of many was worn. The gift was rarely of significant use. Yet the Taiwanese had mastered the spirit of intent. The presence of the gift was the value – not the gift itself. The mariner once received a single small lotus blossom (invokes wealth in Hindu); another time he received an old doll for his daughter; another time he received a small wooden apple in a tattered box. The spirit is the giving, not the gift.

Many say Christmas is for the children. This is not true. Certainly, there is a parental desire to make the holiday as memorable as possible. However, the gifts will disappear from memory. The gift will be many family Christmases that mature into a blissful memory. If you have children of any age, do they have a chance to help bake cookies? Decorate the house and tree? Get a big Christmas Day hug?

All these thoughts entwine with the birth of Jesus, whose birth is the greatest joy and the core of the Christmas celebration. In celebration of the giving spirit of Jesus, many celebrate the season performing charitable work for shut-ins, for those in institutions, or for the homeless and needy.

Thanks again for being a reader of the blog.

Merry Christmas – tonight, have warm mead or hot chocolate.

Ancient Mariner

Marriage

Posted on by
1

An esteemed reader of the blog has asked for an opinion of the United Methodist Church’s rejection of homosexual marriage for the son of Methodist pastor Rev. Frank Schaefer of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, who presided at the wedding in 2007. Reverend Schaefer was found guilty of not following the Methodist Discipline (a thick book of rules and procedural statements, including rules for church property), which accepts homosexual individuals but not homosexual “consensual” sex (stupid). Pastor Schaefer was defrocked.

The mariner will not engage in this issue without considering the whole history of marriage and its impact on religious, social and political circumstances. The first issue to examine is the marital relationship between a man and a woman in earlier centuries.

“Chattel marriage refers to a form of marriage in which the husband owned his wife, and any children of their union, in a legal relationship similar to that of slavery. The term refers to the root word ‘cattle’, from which comes ‘chattel’, which refers to personal property as opposed to real property, such as land.”

Most European noblewomen were party to chattel marriages, although if they brought money or property with them to the marriage, there usually were contracts involved, and “dower rights” were preserved to the wives. While the Roman Catholic Church may or may not have been involved in these “noble” marriages, it stands to reason that matters of money were not subject to Scriptural interpretation.

Marriage in pre-Christian times always considered a woman chattel. Harems and concubines were common and acceptable and “philandering” was common – by both sexes.

Historical references do not discuss the sexual legalities of common people in the Christian era. The mariner suspects it did not matter to the Christian church, the couple being irrelevant to doctrinal priorities. Perhaps a local vicar performed marriages without much ecclesiastical oversight. Likely these marriages are typical of today’s common marriages, also irrelevant to today’s ecclesiastical doctrine unless the homosexual issue arises.

To make a long, long dissertation on marriage short, marriage boils down to convenience. That marriage is a convenience goes back to the early Egyptian era. What the mariner extracts from history is just that: convenience. He feels this is a pragmatic approach to the many ramifications of people that are united in all things. In the case of Reverend Schaefer, the pastor is a victim of transition. Today’s secular culture has begun to acknowledge the situation where homosexual unions need legal recognition. In the mariner’s mind, religiosity has nothing to do with this transition. It is all about convenience in the context of society. Even the Blessed United Methodist Church has mixed feelings about homosexual marriages.

Now to the legality of homosexual marriage in the United States. As a secular concept, homosexual marriage complies with history – it is convenient. However, there are tax and property issues not dealt with by State and Federal law that, by specific definition, never considered the situation of homosexual marriage. This omission is because of religious standards set by strident movements of the Reformation. The framing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights more or less coincided with religious authority in the eighteenth century. Laws must be modified to acknowledge the convenience of two homosexuals who desire to be married. This is happening at this moment. The legal issue is related to the Constitution rather than to a specific religion.

Homosexual marriage would not be an issue except for those individuals or organizations who remain in the sixteenth century practicing chattel marriage – a marriage that required a man and a woman. Those individuals may be glad not to have lived during the age of Roman emperors when pedophilia and homosexuality were acceptable.

The mariner has opined many times that we live in a tumultuous era of cultural shift that will not pass until late in the century. The issue of homosexual marriage is just one confrontation to be resolved along the way. He thinks the conflict eventually will give way to the historical norm: what does the society consider convenient? Obviously, it is more convenient to rewrite a few phrases of tax law than to turn back the pages of religious history.

As to the United Methodist Church, I question their intent based on Mark 12:33: “To love him [God] with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Homosexual marriage surely is included in that mandate.

Ancient Mariner

Trade Agreements

Posted on by
Reply

The mariner is in a mood today. He appreciates that you choose to abide. The cause of his mood is the condition of the common person on the street of any country in the world – including the United States. Looking across the continents, looking at the circumstance of a public citizen in 194 countries, that public citizen is in bondage. With the exception of a few Nordic countries, the public citizen gets the scraps of government and commerce, the crumbs, if any, that governments and corporations leave only because it is convenient to do so.

The mariner speaks from experience. The value of his land holdings was cut by a third in 2008. The third that disappeared showed up in million dollar bonuses at investment banks. However, the mariner is fortunate in his diversification; many were not – especially those whose total asset was their home. One does not willingly choose foreclosure. One does not easily uproot the family to sell a home to avoid a debt that will last a lifetime. It is egregious that the banks holding the mortgages made record, if not obscene, profits on the public citizen’s hardship.

The mariner grows wary of corporate greed. Under the guise of fair trade agreements, corporations have avoided national law and regulation in virtually every country. Multinational corporations are pirates roaming the seas between nations to avoid accountability for human rights, human dignity, and a fair distribution of profit. Year by year the profits grow larger and flow to the top faster.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed under the guise of a new continental achievement in international cooperation. Corporations wrote most of the details. As many States and communities experienced, shortly after the agreement was ratified Iowa lost Maytag jobs to Mexico. Most corporations that absconded relocated just across the Mexican border. American truck drivers lost jobs because Mexican trucking companies were permitted to cross the border to deliver goods and avoid dealing with trucker unions or vehicle maintenance and road regulations. A total wrap up of overhead for the relocated corporations: lower wages, no unions, lower distribution costs and higher, undistributed profits – not mentioning less US tax.

There are many international trade agreements ratified by the US Government that never receive scrutiny or see the light of day. Virtually all trade agreements favor the foreign country, especially Japan, China and South Korea. The net loss in these agreements is a loss paid for by the US taxpayer. Further, corporate agreements with other countries give away large quantities of American jobs in exchange for larger contracts – think General Motors and General Electric among many.

Recently, China wanted to buy one hundred 736 jetliners from Boeing but to get the contract, Boeing had to agree to move part of the manufacturing to China – along with the patented technology that was needed. China ignores patent rights. Now, China has ordered another one hundred jetliners and wants to double the amount of manufacturing in China – again with added technology to do the job. The Seattle area has lost thousands of jobs under these agreements. Corporations are giving away America’s advantage in the world – superior technology – thus weakening the international role of the US.

Today, the largest trade agreement ever imagined is under negotiation by the Pacific Rim countries – including the United States. This trade agreement is called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Its development is under the control of corporate negotiators overseen by member governments. Not only is it the largest trade agreement ever assembled, it is the most abusive. TPP allows member nations to locate in any other member nation and ignore that nation’s national and local law and regulation if these laws interfere with profit margins. For members that refuse this liberty, the member nation can be sued. TPP members can ignore human rights legislation, wage and health requirements and any other impediment to maximized profit, which, of course, is undistributed. Further, the multinational nature of the agreement virtually eliminates taxes and tariffs.

The more the mariner studies commerce, the more he realizes that nations are no longer the primary players of the future. The big players are multinational corporations – corporations for which there is no national boundary and no regard for fairness and human dignity.

The mariner is reading the biography of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s dream was a global government that would see to the rights and dignity of all people. As the mariner reads about Wilson, he compares that dream to the reality of the 21st century. The United Nations, a global organization modeled after Wilson’s dream, is hogtied, generally disregarded, and executes only a tiny fraction of its charter. The UN certainly is not in a position to compete with multinational corporations who are on their way to writing the charter for world peace, AKA profit.

This realization is what has the mariner in a funk.

Ancient Mariner

The New Age

Posted on by
Reply

A reader asked the mariner how one will know that the new age has arrived, that the chaotic factor drops in stress value (in reference to the post, “On Being Old”).

When the dust of the new age settles, there will be a great, cosmic sigh of relief by the society. Unfortunately, before our relief, we must pass through chaos at its greatest stress. Many stressful situations will move to new, stable states. One that must happen first is redistribution of wealth. This will not be a planned event – either by the wealthy or common man. The nation will experience the bursting of a small dam behind which much wealth is stored. Everyone will suffer the economic disruption but quickly new investments will occur in new social and financial objectives. In turn, this will lead to new (and attainable) careers.

For examples of sudden redistribution, one is reminded of the bloody French revolution; the rapid collapse of the Edwardian Age (where a very few held all the wealth); the emptiness of culture and fall of imperialism in Europe before the First World War and then the Second World War; the American robber baron era that ended with the American economic collapse of 1929. Some say we are in a robber baron era today.

Another indicator will be a change in the way corporations make their money. Increasingly, the age of industrialism is falling by the wayside. Currently, opportunists are taking advantage of outdated legislation and regulations (the U.S. banks in 2007-8) and giant loopholes in global economic regulation – undisclosed corporate profit, arms and oil just to name a few. This will end slowly as a new financial model takes over the economy, which, remember, must wait for the dam of wealth to break and for a new political agenda to emerge.

Some evidence of a new age is visible. Although the current Federal and State governments are a deplorable example of Democracy in action, the battle lines are drawn between status quo financial/social conservatives and new goals/new spending liberals. Looking closely at the liberal agenda – full funding of education, modernizing legislation and regulation, single payer health insurance, funding new research and industry – all harbingers of the event horizon mentioned in the last post. Governmental conflict is a very visible sign of chaos.

Another prognosticator of the new age is a move toward intense restructuring of infrastructure. This is not just bridges and roads but a completely new horizon of utility management, travel efficiency, communication, electronic grids that carry information and power at the same time, and a revitalization of the responsibilities of States to manage ecology as a renewable resource that not only pays for itself but also improves the physical state of the Earth.

However, large international corporations do no play by national rules and have shown there is no concern for labor, health, salary or other employee standards. International corporations use government trade agreements as a method of avoiding the laws of many nations, especially the United States. This process will be difficult to bring under control.

Do not be faint of heart. All this chaos will require resilience.

Oh, for the fifties again! Wait. Have you forgotten the tragedy of acne and thermonuclear annihilation….

Ancient Mariner

On Being Old

Posted on by
Reply

The mariner has some years on him – age separates his association with the community at large. This likely has always been true through the generations. Younger generations grant elderly citizens wisdom without proof. In ancient oriental cultures (perhaps even today), an elderly citizen was considered especially important to the community because of the elder’s wisdom. Elderly often were called upon to make judgments about divided opinion. Even a gesture of deference was given by members of the community much as would be given for the Queen of England today.

The mariner suspects this elevated role was important in days when oral tradition prevailed before language could be printed. A lifetime of experience was a valuable thing in an oral culture. Today, the best that can be said for usefulness of the very mature is to remember family ancestry. Ancestry.com can do a better job.

The specific age of supposedly wise status is about seventy-two or three, when the family suspects the old codger (or matriarch) will be around for a while. The codger recognizes quickly that elevation is not what it used to be.

Older folks have learned rules about staying engaged, keep working, keep busy, and, if the wise one has children, grandchildren and great grandchildren around, stay involved with family activities. Further, a valuable asset is old friends, or at least a bunch of otherwise old friends. Keeping the mind alive and the body fit become a daily exercise.

All this is true, of course – unearned wisdom, the tendency to be set aside as life moves on, and the extra effort to remain engaged in life no matter what – but another need for the elderly is growing.

That need is to sustain the virtues of greater good, human rights, common law justice, kindness and other unidentified but critical behaviors that hold a society together.

The mariner often uses the mathematics of chaos to describe the state of affairs today. Chaos is a time when pressure to change the status quo grows in intensity until the status quo fails and a new status quo takes its place. A good example is rising resistance when closing an open latch; at a given point of increasing pressure, the latch suddenly gives way and locks – a new status quo for the latch.

Since about 1970, cultural chaos has grown slowly in intensity and speed. Hindsight provides a trail of increasing stress. The “oil crisis” weaves in and out of our recent history. Oil leads to shortages, quantity manipulation to sustain high prices, wars, and a battleground for world economic supremacy. The financial system of the United States has been brutal in an effort by everyone who can to become richer and richer at any cost until one percent of the population owns forty percent of all stocks and bonds. Agriculture shifted from one family farms to farms equivalent to Walmarts of the countryside, leaving many heritage landowners strewn in its path.

Electronic capability changes by the hour, increasingly wiping out traditional jobs, intruding further into our private lives, and distracting culture from managing its mores.

There is a new role for the elderly. It is a role as hard and demanding as any job in the lifetime of the elderly. That role is to sustain ethics, moral priorities, and to transition high-ground values as our culture moves toward the event horizon that creates a new age. It is the role of the oriental elder – to provide wisdom in an age where printing does not have a defining role.

What is the new role: become politically active; become active in local political and cultural organizations; become an active role model in obvious situations that occur in neighborhoods and communities; detach your progeny from electronic obscurity and insist on engaging other people. Keep a steady keel and hold the rudder on course to higher moral ground even as the waves and wind grow higher.

Often mariner is overcome by metaphors of the sea. However, the course is set: the elderly have a new role to play – advocates of civility.

Ancient Mariner

Dealing with Humanism – II

Posted on by
1

The mariner knows in his heart that every reader read the full length of the last post, Secular Humanism – I. If, unbelievably, one did not, one missed a fine response to secular humanists using Christian arguments. The mariner, himself a free thinker of sorts, has issues with secularism. What is noticed immediately is their intense desire to disown God. Methinks they shout too loudly. The mariner understands this position; He also read other sources that spoke to the deficiency of secularism. The secularists desire to live in a natural state as an inseparable part of a finite reality that requires no mysticism and, it may be added, no ownership.

A second observation is that secularists believe in being nice to others, nature, and the cosmos. Being nice is the end of it. There is no challenge to be more devout than one may be or to enlist spiritual power by leading a cause. Spiritual, in this case, means human behavior, not God’s influence. True, there are some who take responsibility to counter abusive behavior to nature by the industrialists and entrepreneurs. However, each secularist is left to their own perceptions about responsibility or even the definition of abuse. The short of it is there is no central mandate for secularists. The Bible is a good example of a mandate; the US Constitution is a good example of a mandate. One special mandate is practiced among secular humanists who mandate that all creation is at the service of the human being; humans have the highest value. To the mariner, that position sounds vaguely similar to the position of the Holy Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo. That seems to lead to absolute abuse if the humanist is so inclined.

The struggle had when dealing with secularists is their right to individual freedom, which means there is no desire to surrender to a superior authority that can unify thought, mores and objectives. Where would charitable organizations be, or even governments beyond the most minimal interpretations? One of the responses to the last post was to invoke the United Nations. Already the UN has documented fairness and equality for all humans. The UN has hundreds of projects in critical spots of the world. What it doesn’t have is the authority to invoke its policies. The top twenty nations have seen to that. If a nation were one person, it would be a secularist. The holistic approach to reality is a good feature of secularists.

Their awareness of the grand scheme of things provides an understanding about the planet and an awareness of the orderliness of nature. The secularist’s preference for scientific reality is a sound approach. What is missing, to paraphrase an old friend, is a demand for love. In Christianity, it’s the first Great Commandment; in Buddhism, it’s matrī, a Sanskrit word meaning loving kindness; love in Sikhism is the premier quality among five commandments in the Gurbani (Bible). Other qualities include Truth, Contentment, Compassion, and Humility. Even in ancient Persian mythology, Mihr was the spirit of love. The point is that the belief that there is no god, and therefore there is no accountability to spirituality, is the point of failure in secularism.

The lack of an accountability to love beyond one’s self leads to a self-centered life and the vague path of situational ethics, where no rule but pragmatism prevails. Is there a God? It can’t be proven. What can be proven is that if one believes in the presence of spirituality and a feeling of responding to that spirituality, wherever it comes from, one has a fuller and more rewarding life.

Dealing with Humanism – I

Posted on by
Reply

The mariner heard from a few readers that humanism is the future alternative to the common man’s source of ethic, morality, and the daily life of mankind. The following quotes, quite lengthy, will make you an expert on humanism. The mariner has several issues with the doctrine of humanism but would like to address these issues to a knowledgeable audience since secular humanism is rising in our culture without restraint.

“A solution would be for us to embrace secular humanism as a good thing, instead of rejecting it as an un-godly philosophy. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights could be celebrated as mankind’s aspirations for life on earth. It is inevitable that we will never agree about religion, but we ought to be able to agree on what constitutes the good life–and that includes individual rights, tempered by care for the environment and each other.”

Or one from Wikipedia:

“It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.”

Others:

“Accurate definitions are difficult to come by. When one hears the word ‘humanism,’ several different ideas may come to mind. For example, Mr. Webster would define humanism something like this:

“any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate.”

“Others may think of a liberal arts education. Both of these are well and good, but what we are seeking is a definition of the worldview known as Secular Humanism.”

“First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality—something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.

Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as “religious,” because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists’ main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

“These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith.”

“What are the basic beliefs of Secular Humanism? What do Secular Humanists believe?

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “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 agrees, saying that “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.”

“Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the super naturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.” Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment. If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings “may, and do, make up their own rules… Morality is not discovered; it is made.”

Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. A more complete discussion of the Secular Humanist worldview can be found in David Noebel’s Understanding the Times, which discusses (in detail) humanism’s approach to each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.

Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

Question: “What is secular humanism?”

Answer: The ideal of secular humanism is mankind itself as a part of uncreated, eternal nature; its goal is man’s self-remediation without reference to or help from God. Secular humanism grew out of the 18th century Enlightenment and 19th century freethinking. Some Christians might be surprised to learn that they actually share some commitments with secular humanists. Many Christian and secular humanists share a commitment to reason, free inquiry, the separation of church and state, the ideal of freedom, and moral education; however, they differ in many areas.

Secular humanists base their morality and ideas about justice on critical intelligence unaided by Scripture, which Christians rely on for knowledge concerning right and wrong, good and evil. And although secular humanists and Christians develop and use science and technology, for Christians these tools are to be used in the service of man to the glory of God, whereas secular humanists view these things as instruments meant to serve human ends without reference to God. In their inquiries concerning the origins of life, secular humanists do not admit that God created man from the dust of the earth, having first created the earth and all living creatures on it from nothing. For secular humanists, nature is an eternal, self-perpetuating force.

Secular humanists may be surprised to learn that many Christians share with them an attitude of religious skepticism and are committed to the use of critical reason in education. Following the pattern of the noble Bereans, Christian humanists read and listen to instruction, but we examine all things in the light of the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). We do not simply accept every declaration or mental perception that enters our minds, but test all ideas and “knowledge” against the absolute standard of the word of God in order to obey Christ our Lord (see2 Corinthians 10:5;1 Timothy 6:20). Christian humanists understand that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:3) and seek to grow in full knowledge of every good thing for Christ’s service (Phil. 1:9;4:6; cf.Col. 1:9). Unlike secular humanists who reject the notion of revealed truth, we adhere to the word of God, which is the standard against which we measure or test the quality of all things. These brief comments do not fully elucidate Christian humanism, but they add life and relevance to the clinical definition given in lexicons (e.g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which defines Christian Humanism as “a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles”).

Before we consider a Christian response to secular humanism, we must study the term humanism itself. Humanism generally calls to mind the rebirth or revival of ancient learning and culture that took place during the Renaissance. During this time, “humanists” developed rigorous modes of scholarship based on Greek and Roman models and attempted to build a new Latin style (in literary and plastic arts) and political institutions based on them. However, long before the Renaissance “Christian humanism” thrived in the works and thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus, and others. Some even see in Plato, a pagan philosopher, a type of thinking that is compatible with Christian teaching. While Plato offers much that is profitable, his assumptions and conclusions were certainly not biblical. Plato, like Nietzsche, believed in “eternal recurrence” (reincarnation); he (and the Greeks generally) paid lip service to their gods, but for them man was the measure of all things. Contemporary expressions of secular humanism reject both the nominal Christian elements of its precursors and essential biblical truths, such as the fact that human beings bear the image of their Creator, the God revealed in the Bible and in the earthly life and ministry of the Lord Jesus, the Christ.

During the scientific revolution, the investigations and discoveries of broadly trained scientists who can be considered humanists (men like Copernicus and Galileo) challenged Roman Catholic dogma. Rome rejected the findings of the new empirical sciences and issued contradictory pronouncements on matters lying outside the domain of faith. The Vatican held that since God created the heavenly bodies, these must reflect the “perfection” of their Creator; therefore, it rejected the astronomers’ discoveries that the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not spherical, as previously held, and that the sun has “spots” or colder, darker areas. These empirically verifiable facts and the men and women who discovered them did not contradict biblical teachings; the real turn away from biblically revealed truth and toward naturalistic humanism —characterized by rejection of authority and biblical truth, and leading toward an avowedly secular form of humanism — occurred during the Enlightenment, which spanned the 18th and 19th centuries and took root throughout Europe, blossoming especially in Germany.

Numerous pantheists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, and skeptics pursued various intellectual projects not beholden to revealed truth. In their separate and distinct ways, men like Rousseau and Hobbes sought amoral and rational solutions to the human dilemma; moreover, works like Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Fichte’s The Science of Knowledge laid the theoretical foundation for later secular humanists. Whether consciously or unconsciously, contemporary academics and secular humanists build on the ground laid before when they promote exclusively “rational” approaches to social and ethical issues and antinomian forms of self-determination in such areas as individual autonomy and freedom of choice in sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia. In the cultural domain, secular humanists rely on critical methods when interpreting the Bible and reject the possibility of divine intervention in human history; at best, they view the Bible as “holy history.”

Going by the name of “higher criticism,” secular humanism spread like gangrene in schools of theology and promoted its rationalized or anthropocentric approach to biblical studies. Starting in Germany, the late 19th century “higher criticism” sought to “go behind the documents” and de-emphasized the authoritative message of the biblical text. As Darrell L. Bock has noted, the speculative nature of higher criticism treated the Bible “as a foggy mirror back to the past” and not as the inerrant historical record of the life and teachings of Christ and His apostles (“Introduction” in Roy B. Zuck and D. L. Bock, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1994, p. 16). For example, in his Theology of the New Testament, Rudolf Bultmann, a leading exponent of higher criticism, relies heavily on critical assumptions. As Bock points out, the author is “so skeptical about the New Testament portrait of Jesus that he barely discusses a theology of Jesus” (ibid).

While higher criticism undermined the faith of some, others, like B. B. Warfield at Princeton Seminary, William Erdman, and others, persuasively defended the Bible as the Word of God. For example, in responding to skeptics who questioned the early date and Johannine authorship of the fourth gospel, Erdman and other faithful servants of the Lord have defended these essentials on critical grounds and with equal scholarship.

Likewise, in philosophy, politics, and social theory, Christian academics, jurists, writers, policy-makers, and artists have wielded similar weapons when defending the faith and persuading hearts and minds for the Gospel. However, in many areas of intellectual life the battle is far from over. For example, in American English departments and literary circles beyond the academic world, the siren call of Ralph Waldo Emerson continues to hold sway. Emerson’s pantheism amounts to a denial of Christ; it is subtle and can beguile the unwary to turn away from the Gospel. Emerson held that the “Over Soul” within individuals makes each person the source of his or her own salvation and truth. In reading writers like Emerson and Hegel, Christians (especially those who would defend the faith once and for all delivered to the saints [Jude 3]) must exercise caution and keep the Word of God central in their thoughts, and humbly remain obedient to it in their lives.

Christian and secular humanists have sometimes engaged in honest dialogue about the basis or source of order in the universe. Whether they call this reason or Aristotle’s prime mover, some secular rationalists correctly deduce that moral Truth is a prerequisite for moral order. Although many secular humanists are atheists, they generally have a high view of reason; therefore, Christian apologists may dialog with them rationally about the Gospel, as Paul did inActs 17:15-34when addressing the Athenians.

How should a Christian respond to secular humanism? For followers of the Way (Acts 9:2;19:19,23), any legitimate form of humanism must view the full realization of human potential in the submission of the human mind and will to the mind and will of God. God’s desire is that none should perish, but that all should repent and inherit eternal life as His children (John 3:16;1:12). Secular humanism aims to do both much less and much more. It aims to heal this world and glorify man as the author of his own, progressive salvation. In this respect, “secular” humanism is quite at ease with certain religious substitutes for God’s true Gospel—for example, the teachings of Yogananda, the founder of the Self-Realization Fellowship. By contrast, Christian humanists follow the Lord Jesus in understanding that our kingdom is not of this world and cannot be fully realized here, God’s promises to Israel notwithstanding (John 18:36;8:23). We set our minds on God’s eternal kingdom, not on earthly things, for we have died and our lives are hidden with Christ in God. When Christ—who is our life—returns, we will appear with him in glory (Colossians 3:1-4). This is truly a high view of our destiny as human beings, for we are His offspring, as even secular poets have said (see Aratus’s poem “Phainomena”; cf.Acts 17:28).

One does not have to be a Christian to appreciate that humanism powered by pure reason alone cannot succeed. Even Emmanuel Kant, writing his Critique of Pure Reason during the height of the German Enlightenment, understood this. Neither should followers of Christ fall prey to the deceitfulness of philosophy and human tradition, or be taken captive by forms humanism based on romantic faith in the possibility of human self-realization (Colossians 2:8). Hegel based human progress on the ideal of reason as spirit “instantiating” itself through progressive dialectical stages in history; but had Hegel lived to see the world wars of the 20th century, it is doubtful that he would have persisted in detecting human progress in this debacle of history. Christians understand that any form of humanism set apart from divinely authored redemption is doomed to failure and false to the faith. We ground a high view of man in a high view of God, since mankind is made in the image of God, and we agree with Scripture concerning man’s desperate situation and God’s plan of salvation.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed, humanism offers no solution at all to mankind’s desperate condition. He puts it this way: “If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.” Indeed. Mankind’s task is to seek and find God (Acts 17:26-27; cf.15:17), our true redeemer who offers us a better than earthly inheritance (Hebrews 6:9;7:17). Anyone who opens the door to Christ (Revelation 3:20) will inherit that better country, which God has prepared for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes (Ephesians 1:11;Romans 8:28; Hebrew 11:16; cf.Matthew 25:34;John 14:2). How much more excellent is this than all the proud and lofty goals contained in secular humanist manifestos?

Is your spiritual home right here on Earth?

Are you searching for a path which focuses on Earth and the Cosmos, rather than some imaginary beyond? Are you more concerned with saving the planet than saving your eternal soul? With making the best of your one life here, rather than longing for life in an imaginary paradise?

Do you find it hard to believe in supernatural gods, and difficult to conceive of anything worthier of the deepest respect than the beauty, power and mystery of the Universe?

Do you feel a deep sense of peace, belonging, and wonder in the midst of Nature?

Are you looking for a spirituality that respects individual choice and the rights of all living things? One that values reason and science over adherence to ancient scriptures?

If so, then you will feel at home in the World Pantheist community.

Can a spirituality be based in Nature?

In the World Pantheist Movement we revere and care for Nature, we accept this life as our only life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it. We revel in the beauty of Nature and the night sky, and are full of wonder at their mystery and power.

By spirituality and spiritual we don’t mean any kind of supernatural or non-physical activity. We mean our deeper emotions and aesthetic responses towards Nature and the wider Universe – our sense of our place in these, and the ethics and values that these feelings imply.

We take the real Universe and Nature as our starting and finishing point, not some preconceived idea of God. We feel a profound wonder and awe for these, in some ways similar to the reverence that believers in more conventional gods feel towards their deity, but without anthropomorphic worship or belief that Nature has a mind or personality that we can influence through prayer or ritual.

Our ethics are humanistic and green, our metaphysics naturalistic and scientific. To these we add the emotional and aesthetic dimensions which humans need to cope with life’s challenges and to embrace life’s joys, and to motivate their concern for Nature and human welfare.

Our beliefs

Our beliefs and values reconcile spirituality and rationality, emotion and values and environmental concern with science and respect for evidence. They are summarized in our Pantheist Statement of Principles, which embodies the following basic principles:

  • Reverence, awe, wonder and a feeling of belonging to Nature and the wider Universe .
  • Respect and active care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
  • Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
  • Strong naturalism – without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
  • Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Cosmos.
  • Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.

If you want to see why other people have chosen this spiritual approach, then check out Members’ Voices.

The benefits

Most people have a sense that there is something greater than the self or than the human race. And indeed there is. It’s the planet, and at a broader level the entire Universe.

Pantheism’s naturalistic reverence for Nature can satisfy the need for a feeling of belonging to a greater whole, without sacrificing logic or respect for evidence and science. As one WPM member put it, it is spirituality without absurdity.

  • It does not require faith in miracles, invisible entities or supernatural powers.
  • It accepts and affirms life joyously. It does not regard this life as a waiting room or a staging post on the way to a better existence after death.
  • It has a healthy and positive attitude to sex and life in the body.
  • It teaches reverence and love and active concern for Nature. Nature was not created for us to use or abuse – Nature created us, we are an inseparable part of her, and we have a duty of care towards her.
  • It enthusiastically embraces the picture of a vast, creative and often violent Universe  revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope. We need a spirituality in keeping with this new knowledge, not one that seeks to deny or explain away parts of it.
  • It does not simply co-exist uncomfortably with science: it fully embraces science as part of the human exploration of the awesome Cosmos. However, this does not mean we believe that science can answer all questions, nor that we endorse all modern technologies regardless of their impact on Nature.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering.

 

If you want to leave a reply

Posted on by
Reply

It has come to the mariner’s attention that a number of readers are concerned that their replies do not show up on the website. It is necessary to log on to the website before the reader posts a reply. To log on, roll the screen down the blue categories until the reader sees the option “Log In.” click that option. The reader will be required to provide a screen name of personal choice and a password. Once logged on, the reader may submit a successful reply.

The Ancient Mariner will look into a process that guides readers through this procedure if the reader wishes to reply.

Ancient Mariner

Unintentional Reformation

Posted on by
1

The mariner was watching “Book Talk” on CSPAN2 recently. The author, Brad Gregory, presented his book The Unintentional Reformation. By his own admission, the book is a hard read. It is about the unintentional ramifications that arose when the established church (Holy Roman Catholic and Anglican) was no longer the universal keeper and interpreter of morality, ethics, God and daily behavior.

The state protected the right of people to choose their faith. Consequently, the “church” was no longer keeper and interpreter of common good. Each denomination could define common good from its own perspective.

This meant that individuals also could choose not to abide by any definition of the common good. Thus arose secularism, a new movement uncommitted to any definition of common good – the unintentional reformation.

Gregory defined the behavior of today’s masses as not having religion. He defined religion as a natural element in life that provides personal ethics and moral direction. When the reformation occurred, many did not look for a religious definition of morality and there was no universal interpreter of common good to advise them. Further, there were many definitions of common good that, by default, meant none was the true common good.

Gregory went on to say that the collapse of common good has led to extremism, fragmentation in government, greed and abuse in businesses and has left stranded lives. Religion is not present. What interested the mariner is the author’s separation of “religion” from organized churches. His only contention was that there must be a keeper and interpreter of the common good that is abided by the masses. He did not say who the keeper should be today, only that the Reformation unintentionally unleashed secularism, a movement that has no keeper of common good.

The Unintentional Reformation is an elaborate, intellectual accounting of the influence of commerce, politics, science and demographics that over time led to the Reformation. The book won the ISI Henry and Anne Paolucci Award for Excellence.  However, it is a history of the Reformation, not a guide for today’s troubles. Who is the keeper of the common good today? The Government? HA! We must ponder this a bit.

The mariner has written of the decline of pew-based faith. Many have left the church to join the secularists – even as they continue to sit in a pew. This may not mean that many have abandoned the common good that their church provided for them. However, one is hard pressed to believe the moral behavior of the new secularist will be sustained.

Many moralistic individuals believe there is a common good. Some are noteworthy and even influence large groups of people. What comes to mind first are the very rich who organize charitable projects. The rich operate outside the reach of governments and provide moralistic services to those in need. The mariner thinks of Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and a host of show business personalities. Are the rich the keepers of religion in our lives? Economically, the rich are a problem in our economy, leaving many people poorer for the sake of the rich.

The Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian movement certainly is far from dead, though it shows signs of abiding secularism even as it proposes inadequate reinforcement of the common good. Organized religion provides significant funding for numerous charitable programs similar to the rich. The organized church is a major influence regarding moral behavior in society but, as Gregory indicated, it is not the only interpreter of morality, ethics, God and daily behavior. What is needed to unify the common good is a single source with the authority to impose the common good on today’s culture. That includes all elements: personal behavior, corporations, communities, and government.

Therein lays the dilemma. Once Henry the Eighth was able to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and once the Reformation broke the chains of church authority in favor of individual rights, government had the upper hand. Governments allow religious organizations to exist but take from them the authority to interpret and enforce the common good. Ironically, the concept of individual rights is a linchpin in secularism.

The mariner leaves the situation as it is. He has no solution. There may be no way to enforce common good when individuals have individual rights. He agrees with Gregory that secularism was an unintended result of the Reformation.

Ancient Mariner