CONTINENTAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

HUMANISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ETHICS

A RESEARCH PAPER PREPARED FOR PROFESSOR JIM ROSSI
FOR THE COURSE REQUIREMENTS OF ETHICHS, ED 423

BY 
MIKKO SINIVIRTA
APRIL 30, 1997 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
HUMANISM
Definition
History
Humanist Manifesto II
Humanistic Ethics
CHRISTIANITY
Definition
Christian Ethics
CHRISTIANITY PREFERRED OVER HUMANISM
World views compared10
Ethics compared12
An example13
CONCLUSION14
BIBLIOGRAPHY15


INTRODUCTION

Since I was ten years old, the public school teachers in Finland presented me the evolution theory as the scientific, intellectual explanation of my ultimate origin as a person. In college, the principal often publicly ridiculed the creation story of the Bible. The evolution theory was never critically discussed. As a Christian teenager, I was oppressed by the aggressive secular humanism, which was wearing the mask of an honest science.

Later on I learned that if Moses wanted to fit the creation story to the popular mind set, he should have rather written it today than a few thousand years ago. A picture of a universe created out of nothing is much closer to the thinking of today's kvant-physicists than to Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, or Indian creation myths. As a matter of fact, Stephen W. Hawking almost personified the wholeness theory, which he believes directs the quest of man. The factor which directs everything on both the level of atoms as well as on the level of the galaxies, must also be significant for a man, he thinks.  Christianity no longer seemed absurd to me.

This paper will attempt to present the worlds views of secular humanism and Christianity, and focus on the ethics of them. In the last part, reasons for preferring Christianity and Christian ethics are discussed with more apolegetical tone. I hope this endeavour will clarify the mind set so dominant in the western world, and demonstrate that Christianity need to be diametrically opposed to humanism, but can in fact become "its missing link."

HUMANISM

"What should be patently clear is that the human family lives together on the planet Earth and that the ancient myths and divisive theologies invented by the speculative imagination of the past will no longer suffice in the future."

Definition

Secularism, atheism, naturalism, materialism, modernism, and liberalism, are just some labels closely related to broad term humanism. Communism, pragmatism, personalism, and existentialism could be added to the list. This paper deals with modern secular humanism. This secular humanism can be defined as "a way of life and thought that is pursued without reference to God or religion."  More specifically, secular humanism is "any philosophy which recognises the value or dignity of man and 'makes him the measure of all things,'"  as ancient  Greek philosopher Protagoras put it. It is an anthropocentric world view which has gained an ample foot hold in the Western world. One author calls secular humanism "one of the most organised, most challenging and most clearly non-Christian philosophies of today." 

History

Historically, humanism is associated with Renaissance, a period of learning which originated during the second half of the fifteenth century in Europe. The "return to antiquity" was the watchword of Renaissance.  This "rebirth" was humane in its emphasis for human emotions and values - mankind was seen as the source of virtue, and also the discoverer, in both the scientific and geographical senses. 

In its modern usage, humanism has its roots in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Now humanism became distinctively secular, atheistic, claiming that, "People must be set free from any authority except their own theoretical and practical reason."  God was thought of in Deistic terms, who created the world as a clock and let it alone to run by itself. British utilitarianism and English deism serve as a backdrop for twentieth century naturalism and pragmatism. Through men like Schiller and especially Dewey, the modern tenets of secular humanism began to shape.  In America, an other author says, humanism resulted from Unitarianism and Modernism (Schleiermacher). 

During the 20th century, many secular humanistic organisation have risen to defend and spread their ideology, first combined in Humanist Manifesto I, in 1933. Its conclusion well reflects "the anti-supernatural and optimistic, self-centered aims of its signers," Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realisation of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for  its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

Humanist Manifesto II

Humanist Manifesto II was published in 1973. Drafters Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson admit that after the immense cruelties of the World War II, the first manifesto seems too positive. Nevertheless, they continue that, Humanist still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds must look to other means for survival.

The thrust of the new Manifesto is more aggressive than its precessor's. It calls all humanist to take aggressive measures to advance their ideas - there is "no fate."  Humanism can give the mankind the best possible future, the ultimate goal is the fulfilment of the potential for growth in each human personality - not for the favoured few, but for all of humankind.  This goal obviously becomes the base for the Humanistic ethics, the absolute for the philosophy which tries to deny all absolutes. It sounds like the utilitarianism of Star Trek. 

The 17 propositions of Manifesto II can be categorise into six groups. First, religion which places revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Second, concerning philosophy, reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. The ethics are autonomous and situational. Third, the supreme value is placed on mankind. Each person has freedom of choice. Fourth, a good society must have democracy and civil liberties, separation of ideology and state, and equality of economics and both educational and volitional opportunity. Fifth, one-world government would bring solution to the problems of mankind, demolishing national and racial prejudices, achieving peaceful negotiations as means to solve conflicts, and dividing the resources and supplies justly. Sixth, science and its workhorse, technology, are the tools to implement the great change the humanist dream of. The last  sentence of the proposition 17 reads, "We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together." 

Humanistic Ethics

The Academy of Humanism, founded in 1983 by Paul Kurtz, continues the tradition of the Manifesto II. They include in their goals the furthering of respect for human rights, freedom, and the dignity of individual; tolerance of diverse viewpoints; commitment to social justice; a universalistic perspective that transcends national, ethnic, religious, sexual, and racial barriers; and belief in a free and open, pluralistic, and democratic society.  These goals provide a-working-hypothesis kind of absolute for the humanistic ethics, although they are open to revision if needed, as any premises in the scientific theory. Many humanist take "the integration of personality as the highest value." Other values Humanism "discovers in experience are truth, friendship, and beauty." 

According to the Manifesto II, the humanistic ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Human life has meaning because we develop and create our futures. Happiness and the creative realisation of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment - that is the good life here and now. The controlled use of the scientific method will continue to provide solutions to human problems. Faith or passion cannot substitute reason, though reason needs to be tempered with humility. Human caring, compassion and empathy, will fulfil the whole person. 

The Humanistic ethic is relative, having man as its only absolute. Since each person has freedom of choice, everyone has right for birth control, abortion, divorce, and "exploration" of different sexual behaviours. Social responsibility is also relative, since each society differs from each other. 
Though the humanism has grown out of fundamentalism and especially out of Christianity, it now reacts strongly against it. Therefore the humanist like to describe their ethical values as contrasting the "fundamentalist's," Humanist can live with ambiguity and uncertainty; fundamentalist cannot. Humanists respect individual liberty, uniqueness, freedom, diversity; fundamentalist cannot tolerate other people doing what they consider to be sinful or wicked and they have no use for differences, particularly in the area of moral belief and conduct. . . . For fundamentalist, Truth is absolute . . . For humanists, morality is relative to human institutions and needs. 

In summary, the ethics of secular humanism are man-centered, grounded in man's needs and experiences, with the emphasis on the innate goodness of the species. "That man can know, seek, and realise his own good without reliance upon any standard external to himself, is the hallmark of humanist ethics."  The collective good for all of mankind is a goal higher than good for a single individual. The humanistic ethics are also situational, relative to persons choice in given situation.
Interestingly, the humanistic ethics are popularly presented as only to the bold, who are ready to tear the cowardly robes of religion, and choose their own autonomous destiny. Like one Oxford professor begins his  book about the atheist values, "It may easily be that  you are not strong enough to bear what I have to say, and therefore should not come." 

CHRISTIANITY

Christianity would not refute the idea of choosing one's destiny. But it does present different options to choose from than humanism. 

Definition

Apostles creed, legendarily credited to the twelve apostles, is the most universal Christian creed. In the Anglican Book of Common Prayer it reads:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, Suffered under Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell; The  third day he rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence he shall come to judge  the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; The holy Catholic Church; The Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of  sins; The resurrection of the body; And the Life everlasting. Amen. 

Christianity can be well defined against humanism, though they also share common concepts. Christianity differs from humanism in its belief that the supernatural God has created the world and sustains its existence. "This world has value because God has created it, continues to preserve it, and has acted to redeem it."  God is Lord of history and the universe, but not identifiable with either (pantheism). Man exists in freedom and responsibility before God and for the  world - partnership and stewardship define these relationships.  There is a divine origin, and divine destiny for human race.
Christians find themselves allied with humanist over many concrete political and social issues. But beyond that there is two obvious points of contact - man as the image of God and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Man is the pinnacle of creation and therefore has great value - but the value is derived form the Creator. "The true humanity is to be found in a renewal of the divine image in the knowledge and service of God through Jesus Christ. For a human being true liberty, knowledge, and wisdom lie in the service of God."  In incarnation Creator identified himself with his creation for the purposes of  redemption. Christian church confesses that the risen Christ is now seated at the Father's right hand - He has elevated human nature to glory, as first of many who will follow him. The failures of Christianity which have at times led to dehumanising are due to sin, but victory can be achieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. This kind of "Christian humanism" is not individualistic either, God's purpose in redemption is to create a whole new humanity, a new family with Christ as its head. 

Christian Ethics

Christian ethics are God-centered, deriving its absolutes from the unchanging nature of God, as revealed in the Bible. Some definitions of Christian ethics are, "The science of human conduct as it is determined by divine conduct" (Brunner) "A systematic explanation of the moral example and teaching of Jesus applied to the total life of the individual in society and actualized by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Barnett) "A systematic study of that sense of oughtness that flows out of one's relationship with God through Jesus Christ in the context of both biblical revelation and a community of faith involving both being and doing, individually and socially" (Greenfield).  

Christianity affirms the reality of human freedom, the power for effective choice, for without it any moral obligation would become impossible. But while humanist ethics sees freedom as self-motivation, non-accountability to any higher or lower power, Christianity regards it as a gift of divine grace, the ambiguous source in man of both his alienation from and reconciliation to God; yet it is God and not man's freedom which makes the ultimate difference. For Christianity freedom is correlative with  responsibility, not antithetical to it. 

Birch and Rasmussen make a distinction between the biblical ethics and the Christian ethics. The biblical ethics refer to the events of the biblical times, but the same principles cannot necessarily be directly applied for today. The Christian ethics do take the Bible as its objective truth, indeed as authority, since the Bible reveals the nature and person of God who is the source of morality. This truth needs to be discovered and applied by the use of sound hermeneutics, methods of interpretation, however. For example, the distance of time, culture, and the progressive nature of revelation needs to be understood. These two authors see the relationship  of the Bible, ethics, and the Christian life as polarised on twofold theme, community and moral agency. First, Biblical materials promote moral agency and address the major dimensions of the Christian moral life, such as virtues, values, obligations, and moral vision. Second, Biblical materials locate the moral life and moral agency primarily within the life of the faith community.  Another author describes the relationship of the church to the society around as "one of loving service and witness, proclamation and healing." 


CHRISTIANITY PREFERRED OVER HUMANISM

World views compared

Despite of the similarities, the fundamental difference between secular humanism and Christianity is the denial or confession of supernatural God as the center and basis of the world view. This fundamental difference makes the world views often very sharply opposed.

Paul Kurtz is still setting fort the aggressive secular humanism. In his article from 1988, he refutes fundamentalism, any attitude or movement that stresses strict and literal adherence to a set of fundamental principles or values. He sets humanism higher since it represents free inquiry and open mind instead of closed mindedness; tentative, fallible, and hypothetical knowledge instead of infallible and certain; self-criticism and scepticism even about their own premises, tolerance instead of intolerance. He thinks that Fundamentalism persist for sociological and sociobiological reasons. But not really satisfied with this "religious instinct" in man, Kurtz offers a third explanation - transcendental temptation, which source is our creative imagination. This even lead  him to admit that human civilisation is, in a sense, extra-natural (he almost used the word "supernatural!")

As Kurtz offers directions for the radical humanism to battle the foe of fundamentalism, I think he himself does not sound very tolerant. Humanistic tolerance also, in the long run, from Manifesto I to Manifesto II, seems to become defined as tolerance only of the  humanistic views. Vigorous criticism of the false religious mythologies and theologies of today must be undertaken, he says. He expresses special concern for biblical criticism, "whose rich tradition has largely been lost to so many of our generation."  The only change to achieve a humanistic world, is to develop anew the creative imagination of humans. New inspiring moral and aesthetic equivalents of the transcendental temptation need to be created. At the near collapse of revolutionary utopian visions, Kurtz visions three ways for the "new humanism," - it must go beyond religion, beyond ethnicity, and beyond the planet earth. 

How does Christianity answer this kind of statements? D. Gareth Jones wrote about  "The Fragility of Humanism" in "Christianity Today," in 1972. She shows how "science depends on man's ingenuity, which in turn points to humanism; science is successful, and therefore humanism is the only intellectually respectable path for mankind."  The two are mutually depended on each other. Humanism needs the successful science to support its claim of man's abilities, science needs humanism to provide the philosophical framework. 

Christianity admits that science dominates our modern western world, but suddenly it cannot solve its own problems. So it looks to humanism for help. But as science found its limits with the empirical method, humanism finds its limits with man's finitness and sinfulness. The insufficiency of both science and humanism once again reveal to mankind its own finiteness, and at the same time the both logical and practical necessity of something infinite, something absolute.

Many Christian apologist have shown that secular humanism, which denies the supernatural, has a fundamental contradiction, which should not be overlooked. One author calls it "the antimaterialist self-contradiction argument," and this is how it goes: A computer is not reliable if it is programmed by change. The human brain and nervous system are a computer, maybe more, but at least a computer. So the human brain is not reliable if it is programmed by mere change, by natural evolution. But this is exactly what materialistic humanism claims. And right there it refutes itself, "If there is nothing but atoms, we have no reason to believe there is nothing but atoms."  Or as C.S Lewis said in his miracles, "If materialism is true, it seems to leave us with no reason for believing it to be true; for all judgements would equally and ultimately be the result of nonrational forces." 

Ethics compared

Though humanistic and Christian ethics may resemble each others, the fundamental difference of the world views causes fundamental differences to their ethics as well. Christian ethics will always be fundamental, while humanistic ethics will always be relative. "Ethics requires normative principles that never follow from descriptive premises. Therefore Humanism cannot prove that Humanism itself is of any value."   The fact remains that one can talk about objectivism, but cannot live it. Only God can be the ultimate object for a person, for a society, even for the universe.

Humanist attack the essentiality of Christianity by saying that other religions and ideologies likewise, or even to a greater degree, produce integration of personality. But Christianity, on the other hand, does not admit that integration, in this life at least, to be the highest good. Moreover in many cases Christianity does produce integration of personality. Each one of these cases injures humanist's claim for universal superiority.

Moreover, humanism does leads to pessimism, it can offer no ultimate hope or purpose.  Tragedy on our planet is a fact, and humanism has no consolation to offer. Many humanists themselves admit this, "Life leads to nothing, every pretence that it does not is a deceit."  So secular humanist also lacks a lasting motive to live up to his or hers high standards. Do even the most valiant heroes find the fortitude of being motivated by finite good? Ironically, man himself is the point where the humanism collapses. "Gap between the optimistic side of humanism and the down-to-earth application of exciting principles is a fundamental weakness in humanism - a weakness that plagues mankind."  History has often enough shown the crave implications of the presupposition that man is able to dominate nature and himself autonomously. If there is no purpose in his origin, how can value be now derived from his existence? This kind of kindly superimposed value is very vulnerable: it can be removed as easily as it was added. 

However nicely put, secular humanism begins and ends with man and his world, excluding all absolutes, anything beyond man. Ultimately, humanistic ethics have no final causes, moral principles become arbitrary, values and virtues vague. Christianity offers a drastic, revolutionary, alternative. Man is not the climax of evolution but of creation - man has a Creator. The Creator is the pivot of the universe, personal God is the source for man's freedom, self-consciousness, values, creativity, love. 

An example

The Humanistic Manifesto II contradicts itself when it champions the autonomy of the individual sex rights in one place, while else where it makes moral assertions about some kinds of sex. The humanist signers of this manifesto do not approve "exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression."  But who is the authority to decide what is acceptable sexual behaviour? In the words of an atheist, "For the ideal sexual behaviour there exist the words 'purity' and 'chastity.' But on the question what kinds of behaviour deserve these virtue labels, there is probably less agreement than on the question what social arrangements deserve the label 'justice.'"

In Christianity, the sexuality of men and women is grounded in the Creation story. Men and women find their identity as images of God, created to compliment each others. Sex is not primarily something that we do, but something that we are. And because God created the human race in two gender, the universal principles how these two genders should live together do exist.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper has made an attempt to present the worlds views of secular humanism and Christianity in relation to ethics. It has shown that though humanism may resemble Christianity, in the final analysis it is inadequate and contradictory since its denial of the sinfulness of mankind and the redemptive work of Christ.  Though this Christian doctrine is mysterious, it is not contradictory. That's why it can provide a solid basis for ethics as well. As God's revelation aids our reason and faith, fulfilling moral life is possible.

The best defence of Christian truth would then not be contradicting anti-humanism, but rather a reassessment of the human situation and enterprise in the perspective furnished by Christian faith. For doesn't the belief in God and the belief in man belong together in Christianity?  


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Ed. Carl F. H. Henry. Canon Press, 1973. S.v. "Humanism," by Gordon H. Clark.
Birch, Bruce C. and Larry  L. Rasmussen. Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life. Rev. and exp. ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. 1989.
Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Ed. John Macquarrie. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1967. S..v. "Humanism and Humanitarianism," by Roger Hazelton.
Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics. Gen. ed. R. K. Harrison. Nashville, TE: Thomas  Nelson Publishers, 1987. S..v. "Humanims," by P. Helm.
Evangelical Dictionary of  Theology. Ed. Walter A Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984. S.v. "Secularism, Secular Humanism," by D. W. Gill.
Jones, D. Gareth. "The Fragility of Humanism." Christianity Today 16 (August 72) : 12-14.
Kreeft, Peter & Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. 1994.
Kurtz, Paul. The Growth of Fundamentalism Worldwide, in Neo-Fundamentalism: The Humanist Response. The Academy of Humanism. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. 1988.
McDowell, Josh & Don Steward. Handbook of Today's Religions. San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, Here's Life  Publishers Inc. 1983.
Pekki, Veikko. "Oliko alussa räjähdys?" [In the beginning was a bang?] Aikalisä 3 b, 1997 : 16-18.
Robinson, Richard. An Atheist's Values. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964.
Rossi, Jim. Ethics: Student Notes. Brussels: Continental Theological Seminary, 1993.
The Encyclopedia Americana. Int. ed., Vol 2. New York: Americana corporation, 1970. S.v. "Apostle's Creed," by Robert M. Grant.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: McMillan Publishing Co.,  1972. S.v. "Humanism," by Nicola Abbagnano.