| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Russell Stewart" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2004 01:59:49 AM |
| Object: |
Why Christians should be Secular Humanists |
How's that for an inflammatory Subject line?
Seriously, though, despite the title (and the potentially explosive
cross-posting) the purpose of this article is not to start a flame-war,
but to present my ideas and hear the opinions of other people --
people on both sides of the issue. I would genuinely like to know if
anyone can find flaws in my logic here.
Our world has (by accident or design) been set up in such a way that
Christianity and Secular Humanism are in direct opposition to each
other. But when one really examines the two beliefs, the basis for
that conflict seems (in my eyes, at least) to completely dissolve.
In fact, the two viewpoints can be seen not as enemies, but as groups
who can use the exact same means to achieve their goals -- however
different those goals may be.
First, though, there are three things from my title that I need to
define.
1) Christians: Defining "christians" is about as easy as herding
cats, but nevertheless it must be attempted. So I will use a very
weak definition: a Christian is one who believes in the existence
of the God described in the Bible, an all-powerful being who is the
creator and ruler of our universe, who has certain opinions on
what is correct and incorrect behavior for humans, and who expects
us to face consequences in the afterlife for that behavior. Equally
importantly, Christians believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, not
just as a real, historical human being, but as a being who was
created by God through an immaculate conception and faced crucifiction
at the hands of the Romans as a form of punishment (absolution?) for
all of humanity's sins. I'm quite certain there will be quibbling
over the details of this definition, but as I said, it cannot be helped.
What is (I think) important is this: some of the fundamental tenets
of Christian philosophy are the issues of faith, free will, and
individual responsibility. These concepts are supposed to guide
Christians in the choices they make in their everyday lives.
2) Secular Humanists: Probably the easiest way to define this is
simply to look at the definitions of the individual words: "Secular",
for the purposes of this discussion, means being separated from any
particular religious belief. Specifically, and particularly relevant
here, the word "Secular" is generally used to apply to the use of law
and government power. "Humanism" generally refers to a belief
that the safety, health, and rights of individual humans should be
a top priority. So, putting those together, we can define Secular
Humanists to be people who believe that government should be divorced
from religion and its primary purpose should be to support the safety
and well-being of people and to protect their right to live their
lives and make choices for themselves.
3) Be: No, I'm not pulling a Clinton here. I am defining this because
I want to make it clear what I mean when I say that Christians should
"be" Secular Humanists. Because, even if it's not officially part of
the definition, Secular Humanists generally tend to be either atheists,
or followers of more "alternative" religions, like Wicca, Buddhism,
etc. So I'm not saying that Christians should be atheists (that would
be pretty stupid). I'm saying that Christians should, on the worldly,
day-to-day level, support most of the same legal and political causes
that many Secular Humanists do.
So why am I saying this? The reason, actually, is quite simple, and
it goes back to my definition of Christanity. Specifically, the three
concepts of faith, free will, and individual responsibility.
What do those mean? Faith, as I understand it in the Christian sense,
means a powerful, unshakable belief in the existence of a Supreme Being.
A being that is watching over us, observing our behavior and choices,
and possibly guiding us from time to time. A being that will ultimately
judge us at the end of our lives. This faith has nothing to do with
proof or evidence; it cannot be forced on us. It has to come from deep
inside; it has to be *felt* in the same way that true love is felt.
Free Will, though it has been debated throughout history, is pretty
easy to understand if we again stick with a weak definition. It is
simply the concept that we, as sentient individuals, are ultimately
responsible for our decisions and actions. We are not simply machines
following a preset path.
Individual responsibility is correlated to free will. It is the belief
that we cannot blame outside forces if we do something stupid, and we
can accept credit (and the appropriate rewards) if we do something good.
So how does this feed into Secular Humanism? Well, actually most of the
work has already been done. Because if one truly believes in the
importance of faith, free will, and individual responsibility, and one
is truly objective about it, one can see that many of the political
and legal efforts of secular humanists can only bolster those concepts.
If religion is completely separated from government, then faith
is no longer forced on anyone; it is entirely an individual choice.
People will come to God, or not, entirely of their own accord (perhaps
with or without guidance from friends, family members, ministers, etc.),
their decision uncorrupted by governmental authority. That's not to say
that their decision will be uncorrupted; it may be heavily influenced
by, say, their family. But there is little that a government can do
about that without severly trampling on everyone's rights.
If people are forced by fear of legal punishment to obey Biblical
scripture (say, for example, with respect to sexual choices), then
their choice is not entirely free -- or, at least, it is unduly
influenced by factors other than simply whether the action is
right or wrong in the eyes of God.
If government is truly objective WRT religion, favoring none of them,
then religious diversity will flourish, and people will have the
opportunity to choose the path that they know in their heart is
right.
The end result of this is obvious: at the end of their lives, people
who lived in such a society are more likely to feel that the important
decisions they made were entirely their own (free will), exercised
according to what they truly felt in their heart was right (faith),
and they are to blame for their own mistakes and deserve credit for
their successes (individual responsibility).
Why wouldn't a Christian want it to be that way?
.
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Christians should be Secular Humanists |
16 Jun 2004 09:11:19 AM |
|
|
Russell Stewart <user@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<caor56$mgn$1@iruka.swcp.com>...
Congratulations Russell, on a very carefully constructed arguement.
I do however, have one or two questions I'd like to bring up:
If people are forced by fear of legal punishment to obey Biblical
scripture (say, for example, with respect to sexual choices), then
their choice is not entirely free -- or, at least, it is unduly
influenced by factors other than simply whether the action is
right or wrong in the eyes of God.
I know you're refering to homosexuality here, but there might be
someone sick enough to regard rape and child molestation as a sexual
choice. To address this problem, I'd like principle of informed
consent between adults to be adopted.
If government is truly objective WRT religion, favoring none of them,
then religious diversity will flourish, and people will have the
opportunity to choose the path that they know in their heart is
right.
I see a problem here. Christians want everyone to be Christian and so
won't value diversity of belief.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Christians should be Secular Humanists |
16 Jun 2004 12:37:45 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Russell Stewart <user@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<caor56$mgn$1@iruka.swcp.com>...
Congratulations Russell, on a very carefully constructed arguement.
I do however, have one or two questions I'd like to bring up:
If people are forced by fear of legal punishment to obey Biblical
scripture (say, for example, with respect to sexual choices), then
their choice is not entirely free -- or, at least, it is unduly
influenced by factors other than simply whether the action is
right or wrong in the eyes of God.
I know you're refering to homosexuality here, but there might be
someone sick enough to regard rape and child molestation as a sexual
choice. To address this problem, I'd like principle of informed
consent between adults to be adopted.
I completely agree. And I think that can be fully justified within
my theoretical framework. Rape (or any other violent, forceful crime)
is a violation of an individual's right to make decisions for
themselves. And child molestation has been pretty conclusively proven to
do psychological damage to the victim, so there seems no doubt to
me that that is a violent crime.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Russell Stewart" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Christians should be Secular Humanists |
16 Jun 2004 12:40:19 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Russell Stewart <user@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<caor56$mgn$1@iruka.swcp.com>...
If government is truly objective WRT religion, favoring none of them,
then religious diversity will flourish, and people will have the
opportunity to choose the path that they know in their heart is
right.
I see a problem here. Christians want everyone to be Christian and so
won't value diversity of belief.
In practice, that is often the case. My argument is that they should,
because that diversity will include Christianity, giving people the
opportunity to freely choose that path. And if the don't, well, that's
God's business to deal with, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bardi" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Christians should be Secular Humanists |
16 Jun 2004 01:00:51 PM |
|
|
"Russell Stewart" <user@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:caq0m3$2s6$2@iruka.swcp.com...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Russell Stewart <user@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:<caor56$mgn$1@iruka.swcp.com>...
If government is truly objective WRT religion, favoring none of them,
then religious diversity will flourish, and people will have the
opportunity to choose the path that they know in their heart is
right.
I see a problem here. Christians want everyone to be Christian and so
won't value diversity of belief.
With due respect, I have to take a minor exception to that statement.
Many..not all..denominations feel that way. Most of them fundamentalists and
evangelicals that do not consider the other denominations to be Christian
either.
In practice, that is often the case. My argument is that they should,
because that diversity will include Christianity, giving people the
opportunity to freely choose that path. And if the don't, well, that's
God's business to deal with, isn't it?
A single reliigion leads to theocracy. Which leads to the ruin of the
secular society and the corruption of the religion.
bardi..a Roman Catholic who does study his own history.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
