Humanism Part II: The Contradictions

The problem of internal incoherence (or contradictions) within the Humanist philosophy has begun to make itself apparent in my probing of Humanism's view on morality. I know that I did not get into this particular subject in my last post, although I had mentioned it on the first essay, but the problem of objective meaning also runs into the same problems as arguing for objective morality. Where "the best" can mean, I suppose, either the fulfillment of the meaning of people's existence, or the best moral possibilities to live life with. So I won't go on to rehash the same arguments except to exchange "morality" for "meaning."

On to the incoherency problems of Humanism. These contradictions, to a certain extent, are merely extrapolations of the problems I mentioned earlier. They deal with moral contradictions, but also with epistemological problems given a Darwinian presupposition.


A) Individual Freedom & Responsibility

The Council for Secular Humanism claims to champion both of these ideals. Without an objective moral framework (that problem I discussed in my first post concerning Humanism), how is this possible? Without a moral law to appeal to, what happens when freedom conflicts with responsibility? Which out to give way? Suppose a young man is tempted to leave the young woman he just impregnated with the consequences of their consensual actions? One Humanist might step in and say that "you ought to own up to the responsibility of your actions even if it limits your freedom" while the father himself could just as easily say (and be justified) that "incurring such responsibility limits my individual freedom." There is no law to say who is right in this case, and who is wrong. And if there is no moral law to govern such, then maybe all these children who grow up with one parent because their fathers (or mothers) decided to live for freedom rather than responsibility didn't do anything wrong.

What do we tell the abandoned parents? Or even the abandoned children? "Do not worry, your father (or mother) chose freedom over you and that is not wrong. Indeed, that is right." Here, the Humanist has no answer to give and no moral accountability to enforce.

And yet moral reflection tells us that this is wrong, and this type of behavior ought not to go on. We see the outworking of fatherless homes - they tend to produce violent children. And as Ravi Zacharias has pointed out, if fatherless homes have a bearing in raising violent children, what about a world that has rejected its heavenly father? We will see unparalleled violence, and we have (despite supposed "evidence" and assertions of Humanists that everything is getting better) seen just such unparalleled violence in the twentieth century. Indeed, the twentieth century has been the bloodiest one yet due to the deeds of atheistic regimes, dictators, and empires.


B) Individual Freedom & Tolerance

We have a similar dilemma here, but this dilemma proves even more incoherent than the first. If we ought to tolerate our fellow human beings, regardless of their beliefs - then ought we not also to tolerate those intolerant of others' beliefs (as some have accused Christians of being)? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that someone who claims Christians are intolerant is absolutely correct (I don't think this is true); if tolerance is such an important virtue, than ought not the champions of Tolerance tolerate even those who are intolerant? If yes, then the virtue of tolerance as being so important (as we have made it in our pc-driven culture) is really not so important because we immediately contradict ourselves by not tolerating the intolerant. If no, then tolerance has become a meaningless virtue because it is okay even to not possess it to any degree!


C) Evolution & Reason

Since Humanism presupposes an atheistic worldview, and finds science to be of utmost value, it must posit some form of evolutionary accounting for the origins of life. Humanism also depends largely on the vehicle of human reason to bring about "the best," whatever that means. But let us assume that "the best" is logically coherent. This, too, is problematic as has been rigorously addressed by Alvin Plantinga. If the world arose by purely naturalistic means, then there is no reason to assume that our cognitive abilities ever produce true belief.

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensor-motor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost (Patricia Churchill)."

There are those who, like Quine, who find support in Darwin's theory because those species, as he puts it, who are inferior have the "pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before reproducing their own kind."

But Quine finds more comfort in Darwin than Darwin did in himself:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

A fascinating dilemma. Because if our minds and cognitive processes are the product of mere natural phenomena at work, and evolution is concerned only with correct physical implementation and behavior, then there is no reason at all to assume that any thought or belief we have is rational or true. In which case, since we have "discovered" and "proven" evolution largely in part due to our cognitive processes, what does that say of our theory then? Either we are dead wrong, or evolution irrational to believe just as is any other belief we have because our cognitive processes are spawned from irrational and naturalistic processes.

But since I am writing this, and you are reading this, and it does make sense (is coherent, corresponds to reality to such a degree that we can understand what I am talking about) then we can know that we have rational beliefs, even if such knowledge is only brute in nature.


D) Evolution & Responsibility

If humans ought to be responsible, as the Council for Secular Humanism asserts, and assuming an evolutionary account of origins (or some other naturalistic account) , how do we reconcile survival of the fittest with responsibility for community? Why give pensions to retired employees? Why build and staff nursing homes? Why bother with funerals? Why have any truck with any person who is not only productive but at least maintaining the status quo of the species, if not advancing it? Whence then is compassion?

If we are purely the result of matter+time+chance, there is no justification for compassion of any kind. Who cares if that physically disabled person may be extremely mentally able? What application do differential equations have for the four F's of evolution?

And yet we see the value of caring for our elderly and infirm, or even applaud the good Samaritan. We cannot argue the "usefulness" of compassion and communal responsibility when evolution is, simply, blind and selfish. It cares not for feelings or worth; these do not even enter the equation. All that is of importance is ability to reproduce.

Without the guidance of an objective moral law, or an objective source of meaning, we will be left with nothing but doubt, confusion and bloodshed. Without attempting to wax melodramatic, we are seeing this happen. The secularization of most of Western Europe has found itself floundering in immorality, and that does have a profound effect upon the way you life your life. There are bars that condone drug use, underage sex and prostitution; and when one is shut down four more spring up because although the due process of law brings about some semblance of order, it cannot bring about the change of someone's heart that acts on a moral (or immoral) level, not a purely legal one.

And yet the Humanist encourages us to keep hoping, to "have faith" in humanity to better itself. Who is having blind faith here?

The band King Crimson has been around since 1969 at least, and yet the lyrics they wrote over thirty years ago still show us the awful truth of our time.


Epitaph

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
And laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying.