The allure of Atheistic Humanism

currently watching: Deadwood-Season 1

In trying to understand the differences of thought on nearly all matters political and otherwise I’ve accepted that the deepest disparities lie in where a person stands with their belief in God-specifically the Christian God of the Bible.  While I understand most don’t necessarily put themselves on one extreme side of the fence or the other, (that being a total belief in God/Jesus Christ as their savior vs an outright rejection of God going as far as not even thinking it logical that God exists),  the fact remains that if one doesn’t totally accept the Biblical Truth that one may as well completely accept humanism.  This being because all throughout the Bible there is no room for the middle ground, you either completely submit to God or you reject Him.

So why do so many reject God and what are they instead drawn to?  The answer is keenly summarized in a document provided by the intellects at the American Humanist Association.   The Humanist Manifesto III lays out the consensus of beliefs of your everyday atheist.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Its important to note that this is the third iteration of the humanist beliefs.  I highly recommend reading the first humanist manifesto to get an idea of where the current (much simpler and easier to read) 3rd manifesto developed from.  You can also read the 2nd one, but its extremely lengthy and wordy and especially specific on many controversial subjects.  Worth a gander I suppose.

I will now delve into the bolded points of the humanist manifesto 3 and why it is so attractive today.

1. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Basically, Science=Truth.  It is easy and comfortable to live in a way that all there is is what we can see and understand.  Its fearful and oppressive to a certain extent to believe there is a greater force at work beyond what we know.  We like being able to put everything into terms we all know, like being able to explain everything.  All that we know in the world and the cosmos are inside of a box, a box of human understanding.  All truths must be materially perceived and all new discoveries have to go through a process limited to current intelligentsia.  It is of course only rational to believe in what can be put into human focus.

2. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

The natural progression from #1 is #2 which is if science=truth, then our reality and existence is purely random.  This is what we teach in schools since nothing can be explained using God.  Since there is nothing beyond what we see and know, then we as humans can only be a result of what we observe in science (nevermind the extraordinary stretches “science” must take to describe our existence, as it pertains to following the scientific method and the laws of thermodynamics).   This point, while necessary to accept if one doesn’t believe in God, has to be the most difficult for some to accept.  The reason is that it tells a person that his/her life has no meaning, that he/she is a result of pure randomness, has no free will (part of a cause-effect machine), came from nothing, and will return to nothing.  A hard pill to swallow and a depressing reality.  But, atheism is what it is, and the best must be made from it.

3. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

A problem arises from point #2, that is where do humans get their innate value system?  What decides right from wrong?  Ethics are explained by simply saying they are acquired through one’s own experience in life.   Perhaps you have heard of Abraham Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs?  Since man has no stated or theogical purpose, his only purpose becomes fullfilling needs and therefore happiness.  I think the way they connect the dots here is that by everyone pursuing happiness, there is a general understanding of what is good and right for everyone else.  Ethics are therefore both individually and communally derived.  This is appealing, as it says ethics are defined by humans based on our pursuit of happiness.  The issue I have is that it assumes humans are basically good and doesn’t explain evil.  Maslow and his contemporary Carl Rogers decided that evil behaviors come from cultural influences…specifically social institutions (religion) and authority structures (government/law).  Some clear circular reasoning that really makes my head hurt, but still all in all, very enticing.

4. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

OK, now for the real meat and potatoes of the allure of humanism.  It is, quite simply, all about pleasing one’s self.  If it feels good (but doesn’t infringe on another’s ideal), then do it.  What could possibly be better than that?  We only get this simple little random life, so we need to make the most of it and please our hierarchy of needs including any and all sensual desires with complete tolerance for others.  Pretty awesome.

5. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

This essentially says we are interdependent and by joining together it enriches and inspires us to great things like peace, justice, opportunity, ect.  This is probably added in here so its understood that life isn’t completely fulfilling by just paying attention to self.  It involves other people and is actually increased by working with others.  Sort of an obvious feel-good addendum.

6. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Here is why most socialistic countries are inherently atheistic.  There is a general hope or want to achieve sort of a heaven on earth.  A utopia where all are equal.  Thus, it is only necessary to make it a part of humanism that the collective society must be satisfied in order to maximize how an individual feels about them self.  You see how this all works together in perfect harmony?  Lovely I think.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

So, there you have it.  By reading and understanding all of this you can see why it is very easy to reject the concept of God, His creation, His Laws, any check on sensual pursuits, and most certainly the idea that we need to be saved.  No one wants to believe that he/she has to be subject to a higher authority, certainly not one we can’t see or prove using our own logic and reasoning.  No one wants to think that they are inherantly evil and deserving of any kind of eternal punishment.  So we reject God and His authoritarian Bible.  That is, quite simply, the easy way and answer to life.  One that allows us to go on living life for ourselves and our own personal happiness.  I hope that those who pursue this life really do find that happiness.  Because rejecting God is most certainly a choice, one that should never be taken lightly.