The ad campaign by the American Humanist Association caught my attention. Entering the holiday season they are calling for all to “Be good for goodness’ sake”. They contend that being good doesn’t have anything to do with whether there is a God.
Immediately my thoughts disputed the message of the advertisement. With the speed of a reflex I said out loud to myself, “Without God there is no standard of goodness. You can’t have goodness for goodness’ sake.”
But rather than being totally dismissive without further reflection I decided to try to understand why humanists believe that there can be goodness and virtues without a standard that defines it, namely God.
According to their website and manifesto they contend—
1. Ethical values are determined by human needs.
(Human dignity and inherent value are “good” because humans need it to be so.)
2. Life fulfillment emerges from participating in serving humane ideals.
(Humanists rely on the “rich heritage of human culture” in identifying those ideals.)
3. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
(Again, the conclusion that relationships are important comes from observation.)
4. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
(Seeking a “just” distribution of the world’s resources renders justice as defined by scientific observation of society.)
Reading through their manifesto and mission statement left me tired. I kept thinking, “This is a lot of work to eliminate God from the determination of human dignity, values, ideals, and the importance of community and justice." For the humanist these matters have come to humanity by an unguided evolutionary process.
One glaring problem is that these matters are not shared by all humans around the world. Humans, minus God, in many Eastern countries don’t value compassion for example. When tsunamis or earthquake strikes, China or India or other countries could be humane and respond to many needs but it is almost always those of the West who do. Why? Because in the West, humane ideals and world view have been strongly influenced by Judaism and Christianity.
Those in the Judeo-Christian tradition derive all those matters from the Person of God. Such matters are not mere decrees from God but self-disclosure of His own character and values.
I still contend and would say to the humanist that goodness, ethics, values, worth, etc. must have a standard or defining source (i.e.; the person of God). Left to humanity, whatever is the prevailing “wind” of the day in whatever culture brings a determination of what will be considered societal norms. That is relativism.
But, we live in America and I fully support the right of Humanists to convey their message. I’m just answering their question; “Why believe in a god?” Without God it is only a matter of time when what is called good is essentialy evil.
Immediately my thoughts disputed the message of the advertisement. With the speed of a reflex I said out loud to myself, “Without God there is no standard of goodness. You can’t have goodness for goodness’ sake.”
But rather than being totally dismissive without further reflection I decided to try to understand why humanists believe that there can be goodness and virtues without a standard that defines it, namely God.
According to their website and manifesto they contend—
1. Ethical values are determined by human needs.
(Human dignity and inherent value are “good” because humans need it to be so.)
2. Life fulfillment emerges from participating in serving humane ideals.
(Humanists rely on the “rich heritage of human culture” in identifying those ideals.)
3. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
(Again, the conclusion that relationships are important comes from observation.)
4. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
(Seeking a “just” distribution of the world’s resources renders justice as defined by scientific observation of society.)
Reading through their manifesto and mission statement left me tired. I kept thinking, “This is a lot of work to eliminate God from the determination of human dignity, values, ideals, and the importance of community and justice." For the humanist these matters have come to humanity by an unguided evolutionary process.
One glaring problem is that these matters are not shared by all humans around the world. Humans, minus God, in many Eastern countries don’t value compassion for example. When tsunamis or earthquake strikes, China or India or other countries could be humane and respond to many needs but it is almost always those of the West who do. Why? Because in the West, humane ideals and world view have been strongly influenced by Judaism and Christianity.
Those in the Judeo-Christian tradition derive all those matters from the Person of God. Such matters are not mere decrees from God but self-disclosure of His own character and values.
I still contend and would say to the humanist that goodness, ethics, values, worth, etc. must have a standard or defining source (i.e.; the person of God). Left to humanity, whatever is the prevailing “wind” of the day in whatever culture brings a determination of what will be considered societal norms. That is relativism.
But, we live in America and I fully support the right of Humanists to convey their message. I’m just answering their question; “Why believe in a god?” Without God it is only a matter of time when what is called good is essentialy evil.
1 comment:
So, I see your point. I really, really do. It's something I have personally argued for in the past. Yet, I think that the issue is significantly more complex and wrought with inconclusiveness and contradiction.
Those in the Judeo-Christian
tradition derive all those matters from the Person of God. Such matters are not mere decrees from God but self-disclosure of His own character and values.
I still contend and would say to the humanist that goodness, ethics, values, worth, etc. must have a standard or defining source (i.e.; the person of God)
Yet many of the characteristics of the person of God contradict other parts. And the explanations are contradictory. If ethics, value and worth have their own source in God, why do we see God so frequently violate these own definitive decrees?
- God sentences to death all the men, women, children and infants in 1 Sam 15:3.
- God drowns children and infants in the story of Noah.
- God is going to throw people into the lake of fire where they will suffer unbelievable pain for all of eternity.
How do these reflect human worth and value? It seems pretty clear to me that ignoring the plight of human misery and suffering, or in some cases causing it, doesn't reflect a God that actually values it. The standard explanations are "They deserved it" or "they were wicked" or "This is a reflection of God's judgment" or "This is an example of God's holiness" (the standard Calvinist argument).
I don't know about others but I have always found these explanations lacking. I find them inherently contradictory to the person of God and Jesus found in the New Testament. We ultimately need to fall back on the mystery argument:
1) It's a mystery.
Or it's close cousin:
2) I trust God.
If these actions of God really are a mystery, or can only be explained by trusting God (read: yes, they are a problem for the person of God but I don't want to take the time to examine the contradiction), then ultimately, the so-called defining standard of God is arbitrary. If it is a mystery, then it is unknowable because it truly is subject to change at any time.
Post a Comment