ATHEISM AND DESPAIR

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of the universe in ruins. . . . Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

If one is intellectually honest, why would anyone embrace this as a worldview?  How did this worldview come about?  What are its major tenets?  In 1933 a group of thirty-four liberal US humanists drafted “Humanist Manifesto I,” which for its time was a radical document.  Committed to reason, science and democracy, the document rejected orthodox and dogmatic positions and argued for a “new statement of the means and purposes of religion” [Paul Kurtz, ed., The Humanist Manifesto I and II, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1973, p. 8].  The Manifesto maintained that the universe is “self-existing and not created,” explained only by the evolutionary hypothesis.  The Manifesto affirmed that the human race is the center of all things and that religion must be redefined in these terms.  Finally, the Manifesto rejected capitalism and affirmed some kind of socialist order as the wave of the future [pp. 8-10].  In 1973 a group of 114 scholars presented “Humanist Manifesto II” that not only reaffirmed the tenets of the 1933 document but also addressed the issues of civil liberties, equality, democracy, human survival, world economic growth, population and the environment, war and peace and the building of a world community.  The survival of the human race is not dependent on a divine being but on humanity itself, the Manifesto argued.  In addition, it maintained that humans must abandon the archaic dogmas and ideologies that inhibit creative explorations and solutions.  Human freedom must be embraced as the ultimate value and preserved at all costs.

In short, modern humanism despises conventional religion and traditional morality.  It rejects any belief in God and, instead, affirms a dogmatic and optimistic belief in humankind.  Modern humanists see the problems of the world--racism, oppression, militarism, war and poverty--as solvable by humans working together for the maximum fulfillment of all.  Traditional religion, whatever its form, they argue, has not made progress in solving these human problems.  The modern humanist claims that we must put faith in ourselves and aggressively attack the problems of the human race.  Such a spirit is evident in organizations like the Americans for Democratic Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women. 

Despite the anti-supernaturalism of modern humanism, this worldview still has a theology.  Here are the salient themes of that theology:

1. Creation and the Universe.  Humanists contend that the physical world was formed from chaos and that only man’s reason has brought some order to this chaos.  There is no divine plan or purpose.  For the humanist, the only thing eternal is matter.  Carl Sagan, who popularized the humanist approach to science and cosmic evolution, argued that “The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.”  In some form all the matter of the universe has always existed.  Further, this matter has no relationship to any transcendent creator.
   
   The universe as we know it is a closed system.  It cannot be reordered from anything or anyone from outside itself.  Of course, then, there is no transcendent God nor can humans reorder matter either.  Because humans are matter and because there is no such thing as a soul (or anything supernatural for that matter), the laws of the universe apply to humans as well.  Humans do not transcend the universe in any manner whatsoever.  The universe is a closed system based on a uniform set of cause-effect relationships and humans are a part of that system. 


2. God.  Humanists insist that there is no personal God who created the universe or who gives any kind of meaning to the universe.  They also reject the idea of God as sovereign, as one who organizes and oversees the course of history.  As “The Humans Manifesto II” asserts, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of the supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.  As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity” [p. 16].  Thus, humans make their own history, without any master plan.  There is no accountability to God and no fear of judgment from Him. 
   
   
3. Humanity.  The human race is a cosmic accident, say the humanists.  Humans come from nothing and when they die go to nothing.  But that does not mean man is insignificant; indeed, humans are the key to a better world.  “Humanist Manifesto II” contends that “reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that mankind possesses” [p. 17].  That is why modern humanism believes that compassion, cooperation and community will bring about a better world.  For that reason, economic well-being is possible in a world of “shared human values.”  There is no such thing as eternity, so modern humanism affirms that happiness is the only core value for the human race.
   
   Atheistic Humanism as a worldview contends that “man is the measure of all things.”  In themselves, humans are the ultimate norm by which values are determined.  They are the ultimate beings and the ultimate authority; all reality and all of life center on human beings.  Curiously, although humans emerge from nothing and move towards nothing at death, somehow humans acquire supreme dignity.  Yet, despite the humanist’s belief in human progress, what is the real reason for hope?  Why should we affirm human dignity?  Why should I fight to solve the problems of racism, war or poverty?  Why does it really make any difference at all whether I focus on progress or focus on living for the moment now?  If nothingness is my ultimate destiny, then human dignity is an illusion.  Although emotionally satisfactory, humanism is intellectually dishonest and untenable.
    
   For that reason, the issue of death remains a formidable problem for humanism.  “The Humanist Manifesto II” claims that “. . . the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context.  There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body” [p. 17].  The only “immortality” for the human, says “The Humanist Manifesto II” is to “continue to exist in our progeny and in the way our lives have influenced others in our culture” [p. 17].  There is no hope of seeing loved ones, of life after death or of an eternal destiny.  Humans live for the moment or for “influencing others.”
    
4. Ethics.  Modern humanism maintains that there are no absolutes to guide humans in the ethical area.  “The Humanist Manifesto II” demands that “. . . moral values derive their source from human experience.  Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.  Ethics stem from human need and intent.  To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.  Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures . . . We strive for the good life, here and now” [p. 17].  For that reason, all human acts are ethically neutral, except for their influence on others for good or ill.  But human standards are constantly changing and fluid and vary from culture to culture.  Hence, humans must create their own standards and then live consistently with them.  Humanism rejects any dependence on absolute ethics; instead, sexual freedom, personal autonomy and the unbridled pursuit of personal peace and happiness are the vital center of the humanist’s ethical standard. 
   
   For decades, atheistic humanism was the dominant worldview in most colleges and universities.  It pervaded the discipline of science and informed the general approach to the humanities throughout western civilization.  It gives the impression of being objective, unbiased and modern.  Because modern scholarship has been so closely associated with humanism’s tenets, to disagree with it is to appear backward and naive.  The grip of humanism is powerful but it is filled with fatal flaws.

Print