Secular humanism has received great media attention in the past few years, and has been used as a base point from which attacks on Christianity (and other religions) have been launched.
It’s therefore important for persons of faith to understand what the mission of secular humanists actually is…and how to refute their basic premise.
This ‘mission statement’ comes from the Facebook page maintained by the Evansville Secular Humanists:
Our mission is to promote secular humanism and related viewpoints; to develop and support a secular humanist community focused on individual, group, and societal betterment; to promote science and rational thought; to provide opportunities for learning, socializing, and activism; to encourage positive secular humanist culture; to defend the first amendment principle of church-state separation; to oppose discrimination against secular humanists (and the like); and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
The flaw is found in the middle of the paragraph, and that is the dependence on ‘science and rational thought‘.
Science is something of a moving target. That which was considered absolute scientific truth a century ago, or in some cases a decade ago, is now seen as untrue.
And many of today’s scientific ‘truths’ will be disproven.
Why? Because science is not truth. Science gives us a model of how the world works, but that model is not reality.
Sir Issac Newton developed laws of motion that we still use today, to describe how objects move. But his laws are wrong. At very high speeds, close to the speed of light, Newtonian mechanics breaks down.
It works at ‘our’ speeds because the answers it gives are close enough. But if it;s not applicable under all physical conditions, it’s fundamentally wrong. Period. Fullstop.
The theory of Evolution is another case in point – for evolution has never been observed save in the fossil record, which is very incomplete. The conditions which preserved fossils are rare, and while a model could be – and was – developed to allow evolutionary development, there is no unambiguous proof.
To depend on science is to build one’s house on a winter-frozen lake. The foundation will, assuredly, melt.
Rational thought is another rather attractive concept which does not hold up. Rationalism refers to discourse based solely on that which can be proved, without appeals to the supernatural.
The problem here is that it demands the a priori exclusion of the supernatural, which is an unprovable point. This exclusionary demand based on disbelief in the transcendent is in itself an article of faith.
Rational thought is therefore self-contradictory.
I do not have anything against atheists or secular humanists, as long as they hold their faith to themselves. I do pity them.
But I do not want to live in a society they have defined. They say they do not want to live in a theocracy, but that is a lie.
They want to be the gods.