Humanism

[kib]

The Catechism briefly mentions Atheist and Christian Humanism in paragraphs 2124 and 1676, respectively.

Obviously, Christian humanism is good.

CCC 1676 This wisdom is a Christian humanism that radically affirms the dignity of every person as a child of God, establishes a basic fraternity, teaches people to encounter nature and understand work, provides reasons for joy and humor even in the midst of a very hard life.

How do I convince someone that secular humanism is bad, on both theological and moral levels?

Do you feel I am correct in saying that humanism is altruistic hedonism?

Thanks for any help, I am certainly not a philosopher.

 

[GabeShore]

Hi Kib,

This is an important issue for our times. Pope Benedict dedicated his papacy to combatting moral relativism, which is, I believe, the end result of espousing the secular humanist worldview. I commend your willingness to engage in debate.

In order to have a fruitful debate, though, you need to define terms. It sounds to me that your friend has swallowed the secular humanist bait hook, line and sinker. But I don’t know that for sure. If he is open to considering your points, start by defining your positions.

I, for one, think the question surrounding theology and morality is already settled within the framework of this debate. In fact, it never arises. To the secular humanist, who is usually a victim of the Modernist heresy, God was created by man to fulfill some peculiar inner desire. The secular humanist believes this because he has convinced himself that God is unknowable, He is not present to the senses. And that, for all intents and purposes, is the extent of his “theology”, except for maybe taking that extra step to show that Man=God and God=Man.

So, where does that leave morality? It leaves it in the toilet of relativism. Without God, there is no objective morality. You’ve heard the sayings, “As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” and other such garbage. I think the point is clear.

Maybe your friend hasn’t thought these things through and doesn’t understand the implications of his position. It is all too easy to fall into the trap and even to think secular humanism is somehow virtuous. This poison pervades every aspect of our lives.

I wish you nothing but the best.

Yours in Christ,

Gabe

BTW, I found this quote from Oscar Wilde on wikipedia. I think it expresses the morality of a secular humanist in all its deceptive virtue: “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.”

 

[kimmielittle]

The Catechism briefly mentions Atheist and Christian Humanism in paragraphs 2124 and 1676, respectively.

Obviously, Christian humanism is good.

How do I convince someone that secular humanism is bad, on both theological and moral levels?

Do you feel I am correct in saying that humanism is altruistic hedonism?

Thanks for any help, I am certainly not a philosopher.

Hiyas

IMHO: The Philosophy of humanism is completely subjective. It bows in the changes of the secular wind.

It might work…** if ** all Humans thought the same way. The obvious problem is; no two humans do. It would need a treaty between ALL humans…

Example: Humanist decided to make treaties with Native Americans - First Nations. This was considered good for them and the new Nations. How many treaties where kept? None.

Treaties are subjective to whim of the times.

As Always, just my thoughts

 

[kib]

Thank you both for the replies, they have been very helpful.

Can anyone recommend reading for me?

 

[chrysostim83]

Just ignore my suggestions if they’re not what you had in mind.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, “Oration on the Dignity of Man” — One of the founding documents of Christian Humanism. The late Cardinal Dulles wrote a whole book about this little essay.

Josef Pieper, “Divine Madness: Plato’s Case Against Secular Humanism” — A smart little book about how various characteristically human experiences point to man’s transcendence.

Henri de Lubac, “Drama of Atheist Humanism” — I shouldn’t recommend this one, because I’ve never actually read it. However, it looks like a very interesting taking-apart of some of the excesses of the nineteenth century humanists such as Marx and Nietzsche.

 

[Leela]

It is strange that people keep portraying Humanism as a version of relativism when (unlike mere atheism which is an answer to the question of the existennce of gods) Humanism is actually an ethical system that veiws morality as rooted in the world of experience, objective, and equally accessible to every human who cares to inquire into value issues.

secularhumanism.org enumerates their values with the following statements of principles:
We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

 

[kib]

Again, thank you both for the responses! I need to educate myself on this issue.

 

[Leela]

This is an important issue for our times. Pope Benedict dedicated his papacy to combatting moral relativism, which is, I believe, the end result of espousing the secular humanist worldview.

Hi Gabe,

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=55865
"Pope Benedict XVI sounded the alarm about an “educational emergency” during a January 10 meeting with political leaders from Rome and he surrounding Lazio district.

The “emergency” to which the Holy Father referred was the growth of relativism. Young people, he said, find it difficult to develop “firm certainties and criteria upon which to build their lives.” This failure of moral guidance, the Pope said, threatens “the very basis of coexistence and the future of society.” "

Moral relativism does seem to be a big issue for the pope, but I can’t see how relativism relates to humanism since humanism does offer “firm certainties and criteria” for moral judgments as you can see in the list o0f principles I posted. These criteria just happen to differ from your criteria. As usual, the term “relativist” just seems to mean “someone who disagrees with me or doesn’t accept my claim to possess knowledge of the Moral Law.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hiyas

IMHO: The Philosophy of humanism is completely subjective. It bows in the changes of the secular wind.

It might work…** if ** all Humans thought the same way. The obvious problem is; no two humans do. It would need a treaty between ALL humans.

If this argument applies to humanist ethics, wouldn’t it have to apply also to Catholic ethics? Aren’t Catholic ethics still valuable even if ALL humans don’t subscribe to them?

 

[kib]

Leela, what about the argument that without God, there is no such thing as objective truth? Therefore, the secular humanists belief that certain things are good and others bad can’t hold water.

Does that make sense?

 

[Leela]

Leela, what about the argument that without God, there is no such thing as objective truth? Therefore, the secular humanists belief that certain things are good and others bad can’t hold water.

Does that make sense?

If God did in fact not exist, then that would be an objective fact, so it would seem that objective truth is independent of the existence or nonexistence of God or the question itself wouldn’t be worth asking. In other words, in asking the question, “does God exist?” we presuppose that there is some truth to the matter one way or the other, so we have presupposed that truth exists whether or not God exists.

Best,
Leela

 

[stenlis]

Leela, what about the argument that without God, there is no such thing as objective truth?

Let me give you an example of an objective truth:

In an Euclidean (flat) space, the sum of all internal angles of any triangle always adds up to 180 degrees.

Where does God enter in this simple objective truth?

Granted, morals are much more complicated then a triangle, but if there can be one objective truth without the influence of God, why not another?

 

[kimmielittle]

If this argument applies to humanist ethics, wouldn’t it have to apply also to Catholic ethics? Aren’t Catholic ethics still valuable even if ALL humans don’t subscribe to them?

Hiyas
Yes, they are valuable.
Just as your ethics are.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

emphasis mine

Here is where our differences clash. Although; I love life…The here and now won’t get me to Heaven. The ** here and now ** is; it’s greatest weakness. I believe you to be of high moral ethics…can you say the same for all other Humanists? I know I can’t even within religious, But there is law.

Has not the ** here and now ** let the secular world drift subjectively from one whim to another?

The way I see it… there is no fiber to help bind it. No checks - no balances. Completely subjective to the person.

As Always, just my thoughts

 

[GabeShore]

It is strange that people keep portraying Humanism as a version of relativism when (unlike mere atheism which is an answer to the question of the existennce of gods) Humanism is actually an ethical system that veiws morality as rooted in the world of experience, objective, and equally accessible to every human who cares to inquire into value issues.

There is no distinction here. There is only an attempt to respond to the problem of a lack of meaning in a Godless world. In other words, secular humanists ARE atheists (or agnostics) with a value system.

But because you call something a value or principle does not in itself make it objective in nature, or maoral in nature for that matter. Objective here does not carry the connotation of relating to an empirical fact achieved through observation using the scientific method. A secular humanist may claim to be able to scientifically arrive at an objective morality, but on what “science” would that be based? Sociology? Psychology? These are soft sciences at best. It would be laughable to say they are objective in nature. The only thing objective about them is that they exist as branches of study.

When I speak of objectivity in regard to morals, I am speaking from a philosophical point of view. In philosophy, something is objective only in its relationship to a norm. The norm must be true irrespective of the point of view of the observer. It is always true – it is immutable. “What is, is, and cannot not be.” The norm used by secular humanism to measure the good-ness of something seems to be science. But scientific knowledge is always in flux. So, by definition, there can be no objectivity in a system of principles based on it.

I do not claim to be especially knowledgeable about moral theology. I am aware of my limitations. But I find a moral code based on continually changing precepts and “facts,” not to mention a not so latent contempt for religion, difficult to swallow. This is a morality of expediency.

 

[GabeShore]

secularhumanism.org enumerates their values with the following statements of principles:

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

A common misconception is that the Church rejects science and reason as tools used for understanding the physical world and applying any knowledge gained toward the betterment of the human race. She just does not think that science contains the totality of human experience. Science serves faith.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

Salvation? What precisely does salvation mean in this context? This is a statement filled with ignorance and hate.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

This is a restatement of the first tenet.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

What if in the future democracy fails? What then? Will secular humanism as an organized body of believers cease to exist? I guarantee the Church will still be here.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

Good for you.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

This is a fine business practice.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Except for Christians.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

Amen.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

Once again, except for Christians.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

Nothing wrong with that.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

Do any secular humanists suffer? How do you hold to this tenet when, say, you are so poor that you must live in a shelter? Or are the poor and suffering also excluded from your club? The Church opens Her arms wide for them…

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

This is a nebulous and unsubstantiated statement. It has no practical meaning.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

Here it is. This tenet reeks of moral relativity. Some believe that abortion is murder but others see it as a reproductive choice. Here is an example of discord in moral standards. On what do secular humanists base their view of abortion as reproductive choice? Is there an objective norm to measure it against? There is much data from “science” that show the “fetus” is a separate being. That evidence is rejected wholesale. It seems to me that this tenet does not even pass your own tests.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

Tested by their consequences? Does that mean morality is an experiment? Based on the consequences, I think it may be time for secular humanists to drop their license of reproductive choice as a moral principle.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Sounds good to me.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

Is this to show secular humanists are not just a bunch of sticks-in-the-mud? What’s the point?

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

Woo Hoo! Me, too!

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

Aren’t novel ideas by definition untested? This statement is just plain ridiculous.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

You affirm freely, I deny freely.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

Joy rather than guilt or sin? If someone does wrong against his neighbor, should he be filled with joy?

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

How nice.

 

[GabeShore]

Hi Gabe,

As usual, the term “relativist” just seems to mean “someone who disagrees with me or doesn’t accept my claim to possess knowledge of the Moral Law.”

Best,
Leela

Hi Leela,

Excuse the tone, but this is what I call the “you’re a big meany pants” argument. A “relativist” is someone who believes there is no moral law. Morality, like religion, is man made. Therefore, it can change depending on which man (or woman) is formulating it. If you actually tried to understand the position, you wouldn’t make statements like those above.

Sticks and stones may break my bones,

Gabe

 

[Leela]

Here is where our differences clash. Although; I love life…The here and now won’t get me to Heaven. The ** here and now ** is; it’s greatest weakness. I believe you to be of high moral ethics…can you say the same for all other Humanists? I know I can’t even within religious, But there is law.

Has not the ** here and now ** let the secular world drift subjectively from one whim to another?

The way I see it… there is no fiber to help bind it. No checks - no balances. Completely subjective to the person.

As Always, just my thoughts

Hi Kimmie,

Humanists believe that there are objective moral truths to be known. Catholics and Humanists do not disagree in that regard, but they do disgaree as to what some of these moral truths are. The good news is that they agree about most things.

The other issue here seems to be about the incentive of Heaven that is missing in Humanism. I think that is what you are saying anyway. Can you explain in more detail what you mean about that?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Hi Leela,

Excuse the tone, but this is what I call the “you’re a big meany pants” argument. A “relativist” is someone who believes there is no moral law. Morality, like religion, is man made. Therefore, it can change depending on which man (or woman) is formulating it. If you actually tried to understand the position, you wouldn’t make statements like those above.

Sticks and stones may break my bones,

Gabe

Now that you have explained what you mean by “relativist” it is easier to asnwer the charge (and you don’t sound like such a big meany pants.)

From the statement of Humanist principles:
“We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.”

As you can see, Humanism affirms the existence of moral truths, so it is not a version of relativism. There is disagreement here, but the issue of relativism is not it. That is why “relativist” often seems like a name-calling way to say “I disagree,” since the disagreement is so often not really about relativism as you ably defined the term.

The disagreement is epistemological. Catholics believe that the Moral Law is known through special revellation. Humanists believe that humans can discover moral truths on their own without any divine revellation. The disagreement is not so important when you consider that the Church also believes something very similar–that the revealed Moral Law is the same as natural law, which can be known without special divine revellation.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

There is no distinction here. There is only an attempt to respond to the problem of a lack of meaning in a Godless world. In other words, secular humanists ARE atheists (or agnostics) with a value system.

You misunderstood. I was not denying that secular humanists are atheists. I’ am just saying that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God while humanism is an ethical concern.

Humanism is not a response the “lack of meaning in a Godless world.” It is an afirmation of meaning that exists in the world whether or not God exists.

But because you call something a value or principle does not in itself make it objective in nature, or maoral in nature for that matter. Objective here does not carry the connotation of relating to an empirical fact achieved through observation using the scientific method. A secular humanist may claim to be able to scientifically arrive at an objective morality, but on what “science” would that be based? Sociology? Psychology? These are soft sciences at best. It would be laughable to say they are objective in nature. The only thing objective about them is that they exist as branches of study.

Humanism is not the position that moral knowledge or knowledge in general is only obtained through the scientific method. You are referring to scientism or positivism which lost steam when it was pointed out the sceintific method itself could not be tested with the scientific method.

When I speak of objectivity in regard to morals, I am speaking from a philosophical point of view. In philosophy, something is objective only in its relationship to a norm. The norm must be true irrespective of the point of view of the observer. It is always true – it is immutable. “What is, is, and cannot not be.”

Agreed

The norm used by secular humanism to measure the good-ness of something seems to be science. But scientific knowledge is always in flux. So, by definition, there can be no objectivity in a system of principles based on it.

Again, you are confusing Humanism and scientism.

I do not claim to be especially knowledgeable about moral theology. I am aware of my limitations. But I find a moral code based on continually changing precepts and “facts,” not to mention a not so latent contempt for religion, difficult to swallow. This is a morality of expediency.

It is no more a moral code of expediency than is the Biblical claim that we will know a tree by its fruits.

Best,
Leela

 

[Bluegoat]

I wouldn’t ever try to argue against secular humanism on moral or ethical grounds. To my mind the question is, is its conception of reality true? If so, it doesn’t matter whether I like its ethical precepts or not.