A Defense of Secular Humanism
An answer to the Rev. Lawrence James
When I first read the Rev. James' article ("Secular Humanism Cause of Society’s Ills") in last week’s Rhinoceros Times, my first instinct was to ignore it. One tends to become inured to the constant strident rhetoric of religionists whose apparent inability to comprehend a philosophy based on human needs almost invariably leads them to fear it. The Rev. James’ diatribe seemed to me just so much more of the same. However, the title, claiming as it does that "secular humanism" is the basis for society’s "ills", simply cries out for rebuttal and exposure for the fallacious nonsense that it is.
I should note that a rebuttal of the Rev. James’ article isn’t really required, as he provided no evidence whatsoever for the collection of baseless assertions he substituted for an argument. His "argument" therefore fails on its face. However, I would like to take issue with some of the claims he makes and by argument and evidence show that they are nothing more than his uninformed opinions.
First, he begins by asserting that secular humanist "ideology" has been "aggressively promoted" by the "liberal media and academic establishment with a subtle, and often not-so-subtle, anti-Christian bias." Who does he think he’s kidding? The so-called "liberal" media are unfailingly, almost obsequiously, respectful of organized religion, especially Christianity. It’s next to impossible to find a show or commentator on television or in the popular press who will offer serious critiques of religion or theology. Add to that the plethora of religious programming on television and the increasing attempts in the popular press to reconcile religion and science and one begins to wonder where the Rev. James has been living during these alleged "decades" of "aggressive promotion". He may certainly be able to find ideas that conflict with his own personal ethical or moral beliefs, but such is the cost of living in a free society; it does not in any way amount to an "anti-Christian bias", subtle or open.
Further, this assertion requires us to accept without evidence or argument that the "ideology" promoted by the media is, in fact, that of secular humanism. In reality, of course, the media is a collection of businesses, and businesses promote whatever the consuming public is buying. With approximately 86% of that public identifying themselves as Christians (according to the National Survey of Religious Identification, 1990), one also has to wonder why it should be automatically assumed that they’re buying something supposedly at odds with their own personal beliefs. In addition, the Rev. James provides no evidence or argument to connect the "ideology" being promoted by the media to the principles of secular humanism. In fact, he fails to provide any identification at all for this "ideology" or what it entails, thus making it impossible for him to prove such a connection actually exists.
I wonder if the Rev. James actually has any idea of what is embodied by the philosophy of humanism or what it really means to be a secular humanist? From his article, I gather that he is largely ignorant of the principles of secular humanism and seems to have chosen it because the "secular" appellation provided him with a convenient scapegoat at the feet of which he could lay the blame for all the "ills of modern society". While this may sell well from the pulpit, it simply doesn’t pass muster in the free and open debate of ideas that is one of the hallmarks of our democratic society.
For those who may be wondering, a full statement of the principles of humanism can be found at the website of the Council for Secular Humanism (www.secularhumanism.org), but I can reproduce here a few key components (from the CSH website):
"Critical reason", "growth", "search for objective truth", "ethical conduct", "good will and tolerance"; do these sound like principles that are the "cause of society’s ills"? Wishing doesn’t make it so and the Rev. James needs a good deal more than the "wishful thinking" he presents in his article if he wants to prove his statement.
Among the list of atrocities for which he contends secular humanism is responsible, the Rev. James catalogs the recent spate of school massacres, "live-in relationships, unwanted pregnancies, birth-control abortion, and rampant divorce…." Of course, not one shred of evidence is produced to support such monumental allegations. In reality, the case is not quite so easy to make:
Rev. James next repeats the common accomodationist myth that the first amendment was actually intended by the founding fathers to prevent the establishment of one denomination as the state church, rather than to actually separate church and state. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The founding fathers specifically rejected language that would have made such a view explicit: "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another…" (from an earlier draft). It is patently clear from the historical record that the founding fathers wanted nothing less than the separation of the church from the state, in the interests of protecting both.
The Rev. James goes on to characterize secularism as "valueless" and "amoral". Upon examination this, too, is seen to be an unfounded opinion. Moral philosophers since the time of Socrates have been debating the relationship of ethics and religion. About the only thing upon which many have been able to agree is that religion is not required for ethics or morality to exist. The principles of humanism are, in fact, principles of ethical and moral responsibility; to ourselves and our society, based upon a consequentialist view of morality (that the moral status of actions is to be evaluated based upon its consequences). Rev. James’ characterization is nothing but a strawman argument, designed to elicit an emotional response, but absolutely devoid of objective truth. It is not only possible for the non-religious to be moral, but the philosophy of humanism explicitly endorses the "cultivation of moral excellence" (from the Humanist Affirmations).
Finally, I wonder exactly what "Biblical principles" the Rev. James has in mind as those to which the U.S. should submit itself. Would they include the stoning to death of disobedient children? Women considered as chattel? Forced incest? Rape? Slavery? Genocide? These are all allegedly God-sanctioned behaviors portrayed in the Old Testament. Or perhaps the Rev. Lawrence meant so-called Christian principles (i.e., the New Testament)? Unfortunately for his thesis, there is nothing particularly Christian about "love thy neighbor" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". These noble sentiments predate Christianity and the Bible by no few centuries. If the Rev. James accepts that such principles can form the basis for a successful society, then it is clear that a public "return to God" has no necessary connection with such success.
The Rev. James and I do agree on one thing: modern society suffers from an appalling lack of ethical and moral values. This is not, however, as the Rev. James claims, due to the "failure of secular humanism", but rather to the failure of parents and society, both religious and non-religious, to instill in our children a sense of ethics and the importance of moral values. As I believe I have shown, the Rev. James is incorrect in asserting that moral values are only made possible by religious belief, therefore it need not be a failure to believe in God that is responsible for society’s apparent lack of a moral compass, but, more likely, our failure to believe in ourselves; to recognize the importance of values to ourselves and to society as a whole and to communicate this to our children.
I would ask the Rev. James, and all other similarly minded people, to examine carefully the basis for their beliefs. Making "secular humanism" your whipping boy may serve to rally your congregations (and I’m sure it doesn’t hurt the weekly collections, either), but in the end, the only purpose it serves is one of division. The very real problems of our society require the application of human intelligence and rational discourse; the cooperation of every individual, both the religious and the non-religious, not this sort of shrill polemic. The last of the affirmations of humanism spells out for me the true promise of the humanist philosophy: "We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings." That seems to me a principle that we can all get behind, secular or not.
Bill Snedden
29 May, 2001