IS UP!

Now… I want to give a couple of shoutouts.

One, to my brother. He freaking rocks. His graphics, as usual, are insanely good.

Two, to Catez, from AllThings2All, and to Tim, from Church Voices. They both helped a great deal.

Three, to the rest of the Vox Team. They rock, too.

Now – the moment you’ve all been waiting for. Vox Apologia XI. Click on the graphic below – and get ready to have your freakin’ socks knocked off. Oh, and feel free to explore, after you read. That’s the idea.

Hear the bells ringing, they’re singing
That we can be born again!
Hear the bells ringing, they’re singing
Christ is risen from the dead!
The angel, up on the tombstone
Said He is risen; just as He said!
Quickly now, go tell His disciples
That Jesus Christ is no longer dead!
Joy to the world!
He is risen hallelujah!
He is risen hallelujah!
He is risen hallelujah, hallelujah!

Joy to the world, He has risen, hallelujah!
He’s risen, hallelujah!
He’s risen, hallelujah!
Hallelujah!

– 2nd Chapter of Acts, Easter Song (Album: With Footnotes)

The subject is: Answering Objections: God’s Way?.

2 things I want to note.

First: These will be the inaugural posts in the new setup for Vox Apologia – which will be revealed this edition. The “suprise” is almost ready – and I think you’re going to like it. So, please, submit your entries, will you?

Second: I’d like to expand on the topic a bit.

The “objections” refers to objections to Christianity, to belief in Christianity, or objections to aspects of God which are barriers to the above.

ie: The Argument From Evil.

How do we respond to arguments about, or objections made about, God, Following Him, or the like – and do it in a way that honors God? This is a crucial subject – because it is something every apologist has to engage in, at one point – and when we do, it must honor God, or we are doing it in vain.

I’d like to hear your thoughts. I will certainly share mine.

Welcome: To the Vox Apologia Symposium X. This is edition 10, which means the Vox Apologia Symposium has reached 2 1/2 months running now! I had no idea it would receive such an awesome response from you all – and I am grateful you’ve participated thus far! I look forward to many, many more great symposiums in the future, as well.

Today’s host is, unfortunately, me again.

I WAS going to have a surprise for you.. but I couldn’t pull it off just yet. However, like last week, the graphic is a preview of the surprise…

The graphic you see is by my brother, Paul, aka “BrainCatalyst”. I hope you stop by his site, when you’re through. I enjoy his work – in fact – it’s all over my site. Including the banner, you see above.

Today’s subject is “Presuppositional Apologetics: Target Audience”. I was very specific, because this is something I’m not overly familiar with. So… I figured that there may be others who are not, either.

There were some absolutely GREAT entries this week. Only two of them – but they were excellent counterpoints – and took completely different approaches.

Next Week! The host will be at a surprise location. The subject is “Answering Objections: God’s Way?” Send entries HERE, no earlier than Thursday, March 24th, no later than midnight EST, Sunday, March 27th.	Graphics courtesy of: My brother, and a graphics guru.	Got Defense? Join Vox Apologia! “being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”
The Vox Apologia is a weekly symposium, conducted on a “thematic” basis. It includes blog entries based around a single theme, in order to garner varying perspectives – which will be assembled, as time passes, as a database of sorts. Each edition of the Vox Apologia is ‘guest hosted’ with commentary from the guest host, relevant to each submitted article, where possible, and a graphic – if desired. Participants need not be members of the Apologetics Aggregator, nor do the entry URLs submitted have to be those of the participant. Submission guidelines and a short FAQ are here. Credit goes to Gary Cruse, of The Owner’s Manual, for the presentation concept. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

The next Vox, unfortunately, will be hosted here once again. I’ll have it up tomorrow morning, once I get back from work.

I got tapped to work tonight… again. Which means that I worked Saturday night, had church this morning, had 3 hours or so of sleep between church services – and now have to go to work again. So, obviously… I haven’t had much time. (For those who don’t know, I have a new job, on graveyard shift – as well as a couple other projects and personal concerns which have severely curtailed my blogging. So, please excuse my lack of posting lately.)

Which was the time I WAS going to use to finish that surprise I talked about. I *should* have that surprise up and ready by the next Vox – and running how it’s supposed to be. Until then… please be patient, and thank you for your consideration! I do appreciate it.

I know several of you have left comments that I really should reply to… and I will. I have projects I *need* to get done – and they are my first priority at the present time. Blogging was, to be honest, supposed to be a part-time hobby to begin with. For a while, it became almost an all-consuming thing, due to the need I felt to organize and link together the apologetic bloggers, and to seek out and find as many as I could, so you could all meet each other. That has been my passion for the last few months – and still is. When my time constraints returned to normal, I had to set something up to continue the ministry I started, with a smaller time “budget” – and that’s what I’m trying to get set up. So… please be patient. In doing so, I’ve run into those time restraints (as well as discovering more…), while simultaneously trying to cover several other projects.

In other words… neither my available time, nor my time management skills have been up to the task. So, I apologize for not coming through on my promises on time.

Once this is done, I’m hoping we’ll have a newer, better Daily Cut style series, an awesome home for the Vox Apologia Symposium, and a reference library for apologetics blogging. Circumstances just haven’t let me accomplish everything I had planned to do, in the time I had to do them. I’ve barely blogged at all in the past few weeks! I will get back to blogging, and to “normal” (albeit with a bit less time, which, honestly, has been a long time coming :D) soon – but, in the meantime, please be patient. I really think you’ll like the results coming from my recent hiatus.

Once again.. stand by for updates. And thank you, as always, for visiting my humble abode.

Thanks!
~RK

This week’s theme is “Presuppositional Apologetics: Target Audience“.

Presupposition Apologetics presupposes the existence of God. Who is this style of apologetics best suited for, and why? Who is it NOT suited for?

This is a strictly apologetical topic – which I know many of you have asked for. So, enjoy – and send ’em on in. Location will be announced in a post, and on the sidebar to your right.

Send submissions to: this address.

P.S. – Sorry about the wait, folks.

Welcome to Vox Apologia IX! This week’s submissions were simply incredible. I applaud you for your excellent work.

I received two entries from antithetical worldviews this week – and I decided not to post them inside Vox itself. Counterpoint entries will be listed elsewhere – and I will let you know when/where that will be.

From here on out, I have an announcement. There won’t be any more roving hosting of Vox. I will explain why next week – and you’ll see why that is.

After all that is out of the way… Welcome: To the Vox Apologia Symposium IX.

Today’s host is yours truly – Joshua Whipps, aka “RazorsKiss”. The graphic you see is by my brother, Paul, aka “BrainCatalyst”. I hope you stop by his site, when you’re through. I enjoy his work – in fact – it’s all over my site. Including the banner, you see above.

Today’s subject is “Glory to Man in the Highest: Humanism’s Dangerous Lie”. I kept the definition and description purposely specific, to see the response. Several people took a similar approach, several people took “the road less traveled”. Both types of entries complement each other well.

This was an absolutely excellent Vox – as you are about to find out. Thank you once again.

Next Week! The host will be a surprise. A surprise I think you will like. Send entries HERE , no earlier than Thursday, March 17th, no later than midnight EST, Sunday, March 20th.	Graphics courtesy of: My brother, and a graphics guru.	Got Defense? Join Vox Apologia! “being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence”
The Vox Apologia is a weekly symposium, conducted on a “thematic” basis. It includes blog entries based around a single theme, in order to garner varying perspectives – which will be assembled, as time passes, as a database of sorts. Each edition of the Vox Apologia is ‘guest hosted’ with commentary from the guest host, relevant to each submitted article, where possible, and a graphic – if desired. Participants need not be members of the Apologetics Aggregator, nor do the entry URLs submitted have to be those of the participant. Submission guidelines and a short FAQ are here. Credit goes to Gary Cruse, of The Owner’s Manual, for the presentation concept. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Humanism is something dangerous.

The premise is dangerous, the concept is dangerous – but the logical conclusion which follows from it is what is the most dangerous.

In order that we may demonstrate this, it is necessary to both define humanism, and to examine what it entails. This is what we will do. As we go, we will examine the various concepts lying behind the various statements made.

To begin, we must first look at the definitions.

Per Dictionary.com, Humanism is defined as:

A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.

This is all well and good – but notice, already, that the focus is on humanity. Humanism is a self-centered entity.

Now, we come to The Humanist Manifesto, penned in 1933.

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical
changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is
past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic
change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are
under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by
a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human
activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and
explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better
understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations
which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal,
identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which
have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem
of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been
means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been
accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing
situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting
therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for
realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors
results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact
explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But
through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for
abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific
achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a
situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of
religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of
furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may
appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this
age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the
less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and
dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To
establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is
a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore
affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the
universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part
of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous
process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life,
humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must
be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s
religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by
anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development
due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his
social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is
largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the
universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any
supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously
humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet
undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the
existence and value of any and all realities is by means of
intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to
human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the
light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has
passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of
“new thought”.

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions,
purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing
human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science,
philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its
degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The
distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be
maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the
complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s
life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and
now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes
involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious
emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a
cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no
uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto
associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of
life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and
probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by
education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will
take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage
sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work
increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster
the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the
satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that
all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of
human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control,
and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to
the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of
humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic
forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to
function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced
that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown
itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods,
controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and
cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the
equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The
goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people
voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.
Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism
will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the
possibilities of life, not flee from them; and ( c) endeavor to
establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not
merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism
will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the
techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the
religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the
quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is
at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the
realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself
the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to
the task.

Now, as we examine this, we can see the explicitly human-centric viewpoint in an exceedingly blatant way. This document, in essence, completely rejects anything which does not originate with man, and is not centered on man. It is an assertion of man’s superiority.

THIS is the dangerous claim of humanism. “Religion consists of those actions,
purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant.” In other words, “man is the sole arbiter of significance.” This, my friends, is a very, very dangerous claim. A claim that says “I alone determine worth, significance, and value – for I am human.”

The sheer hubris of such a claim is truly mind-boggling. Pride is truly the chief of sins.

Let’s examine this, piece by piece. I may, after we tackle this, tackle the second incarnation of the Manifesto, penned in 1973. We shall see, though. Another time though, certainly.

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical
changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs.

It seems, since this was written, that such recognition has, in fact, come. The USSR, Communist China, and Nazi Germany, most notably, have been prime country-specific examples. The United States, despite it’s strong religious underpinnings, has become, essentially, a humanistic nation. Assertions to the contrary withstanding – religious expression is on the decline, and has been for the last 80 years. The majority of Americans are no longer strongly religious. They were right – it has not been a “mere revision” – it has been a social upheaval. The results of this social upheaval are clearly evident across the face of not just the US culture – but across the face of the world. There have been more wars, and there has been more massive destruction within the last century, than in any century in the history of the world. I do not find this coincidental. I find it a logical extension of the concept which scoffs at “mere revision”.

Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human
activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

Most religions HAVE come to terms with the conditions created by the exponential increase in knowledge. Many of the increases have been due to the efforts of religious men and women – something which is rarely pointed out.

I also wonder – what, in this document, is expressed by the phrase “all the vital movement”? Is this intended to make a distinction between a “vital”, and a “non-vital” type of movement? If so, I’d like to know what, exactly, makes the two different. I’d most definitely agree that the humanism expressed here is both candid, and explicit. I would make one small observation, however. Within society in general, the tendencies which have resulted from humanism are neither candid, nor explicit. There is always an implied intent – an implied goal, and an implied worldview which, in a nutshell, expresses a very similar set of beliefs – yet never quite comes out and says them, unless pressed to the wall about the issue.

It almost seems as if there is some joke, which they are all “in on” – and everyone is expected to know. Except that noone seems to really know what it means – or what is really implied. Even worse… noone seems to care. That is what makes the claim so dangerous. It’s simply “assumed” that it is true – whether or not there is anything to say in it’s defense. It’s the “implication” that always seems to get lost in these discussions about “meaning” and “purpose”. What are we really trying to say? That we define our own purpose? I wonder. Why is it that so many seem to have lost even the concept of meaning, these days? Surely it’s not because they haven’t “managed” to define it… is it? Could it be, perhaps, that humans just don’t have any intrinsic meaning or purpose that they can define for themselves? Meaning is only established from the outside. Something outside itself has to set a value for it – or it really DOES mean nothing. It has to mean something TO someone. So, in essence, humanism attempts to self-define meaning. It is doomed to fail.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal,
identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which
have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem
of human living in the Twentieth Century.

Ah, another connotative word. “Significance.” In what regard are these nebulously defined “doctrines and methods” no longer significant? Furthermore, what exactly is “the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century”? I wish they had bloggers back when this was written. A masterpiece of undefinition.

Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been
accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors
results in alteration of the outward forms of religion.

Yes, it has been the means for realizing the highest values in life. I still have yet to see any attempt to explain how this concept “highest” applies to something determined solely by humanity itself – or due to a naturalistic process…

You have to love the Orwellian doublespeak permeating this entire document, though. Theology is, of course, not what it actually SAYS – the study of God. It’s now “the interpretation of the total environing situation”. World view *almost* applies – but a world view has it’s basis in a theology – either secular (humanistic: man-is-god thus the study of man is the study of god – thus, man must determine his existence after “knowing himself”), or religious (the study of God lays out the behavioral standards that man must live under.)

This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But
through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for
abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Of course, they fail to mention that humanism is nothing new. Man has always loved man. Man has always worshipped self. It’s just a variation on an ancient theme… “‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” One wonders… have they examined the word “monomania” – and what it means? Or even “egotist”, or “egotistical”. An overblown preoccupation with self – either individually, or corporately.

I love how they just blithely blow right by a question here. Humanity is, of course, on a “quest for abiding moral values”. Maybe this is just a silly question: If humans define moral values – are they really abiding? In even a short-term sense? It’s mind-numbingly simple. Abiding is equated with permanence. With lasting significance. Meaning, again. Not only do they not give any sort of satisfactory mention of this whole dilemma – they don’t even acknowledge it. What myopic stupidity.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific
achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a
situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of
religion.

Ah, understanding. That’s a funny term to use. We don’t understand half of what we know. We are acquainted with facts, which are more, or less, true. We don’t know much of jack. We know more about the universe – but we don’t know as much as we think we do. Our vaunted scientific achievements are quite impressive – but not quite indicative of “understanding” – in even a nominal sense. Certainly not in a Biblical sense, where you understand not only the facts, but the application of them.

I find the “deeper appreciation of brotherhood” almost tragic. This was written in 1933 – less than a decade before the wholesale slaughterhouse which was World War II. Not only did men lose all conception of brotherhood during this period; but they dehumanized, butchered, and turned to dust every vestige of brotherhood. I utterly reject any so-called “moralizer” who shows man to be anything other than what he is – capable of the most heinous, despicable, and reprehensible acts imaginable. Man is also capable of great good – but man does not tend towards good naturally.

Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of
furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may
appear to many people as a complete break with the past.

Mostly because, well… it is. I’d wonder – what, exactly, is “adequate”? How exactly do you go about providing “satisfaction”? Yet more Orwellian for “we don’t have a clue, but we’re sure you’ll figure it out – and we’ll call it “religion””.

While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the
less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and
dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age.

Utilitarrrrrrrianism!

I wonder how many philosophical schools they’ll manhandle in a single document. It’s like the grab bag of philosophy. “Take a little from here, a little from there… and add a dash of that.”

To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.

Oh, wait, wait… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

I’ve heard this before! Does denying the supernatural in favor of the supremacy of man – and making that standard supreme count as “establishment”? It usually does in court cases…

Wow. Who’d have thought it?

It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore
affirm the following:

Your generation, good sirs, brought such an appalling lack of significance to daily life, that we have only you to thank for the epidemics of hopelessness, meaninglessness, and suicide. You and your platitudes, which try to evoke some sort of Utopian ideal, for brotherhood on earth – with no earthly clue what in the world you’re talking about.

It’s all great that you have this deep desire for meaning, for truth, and for humanity to be deemed worthy. When you try to self-define meaning – it fails, miserably. Something cannot be both judge, and judged, at the same time. You cannot defy logic, and attempt to be considered logical.

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the
universe as self-existing and not created.

Ah, self-existent. Now we come to the crux of the matter. Physicalism. If it is matter, not God, that is self-existent, you can dispense with all of those “trivial” notions, like spirit. This is at the heart of humanistic thought. In order to deny God, and elevate man, you have to begin with the destruction of spirit, and the supernatural. To elevate the natural, the supernatural must be abolished. That is the underlying philosophy here.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part
of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous
process.

So, we have another affirmation of materialism, along with an affirmation of evolution (of some sort). Man is no longer “master” – he is simply another step on the evolutionary ladder. This, by the by, is why evolution is so often related to either secular or religious humanism. (Which, honestly, I find little to no difference between. It is simply a matter of connotation.)

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life,
humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must
be rejected.

Here is the rejection of the spiritual. To deny spirit is to deny a spiritual element to life, and the practice of spiritual principles. To deny spirit is to, in essence, deny BOTH God, and man’s relationship to God – which is via the spiritual realm. This, if you notice, is a systematic assault on anything which could be a rival to the superiority of man. That is why it is a manifesto. It is, in fact, a declaration of war.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s
religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by
anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development
due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his
social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is
largely molded by that culture.

1. Religious culture and civilization are not synonymous. In fact, they are often at odds. Take modern-day America, for example. Religious culture is at war with secular civilization. This is not brain surgery. It’s common sense. Clever of them to try and meld the two – but not accurate.

2. Anthropology? Clearly? I’m thinking “oxymoron”, for some reason. History is often no better. Now, please understand – I have no animus toward either. I have issue with the fact that these people are appealing to authority where none exists. Anthropology has no clear answers for religious beliefs. History has no answer for why people believe as they do. The best either can do is to report the facts. Facts which are, at best, entirely subject to the feelings and internal struggles of the individuals – and at worst, are reported by people with an agenda.

3. Gradual development via interaction? Social evolution, now. Curious. Here I was, thinking that Judaism and Christianity are both multi-millenia old (with Judaism coming in at about 5,000 years, now). Of course, both tend to have the ability to react to the culture, but they usually adapt the culture to themselves – not the other way around. Even more often, they stay completely apart from any culture they find themselves in – while molding aspects of the culture to them at the same time.

4. Yes, individuals are molded by their culture. However, counter-cultural ideas and patterns are just as much the norm. This is why rebellions exist, counter-culture groups always cause trouble, and why reforms are initiated, as well as suppressed. I find this viewpoint not only simplistic, but intellectually dishonest. For the most part, individuals are molded by their ideas – or lack thereof.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the
universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any
supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

Just to make it completely clear – this is just an assertion. There is no evidence within science – “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” – that precludes the supernatural. I find this statement baffling – especially as the supernatural is exactly as defined: “outside the natural world.” Not only is this an obvious gaffe – but slightly baffling. How can the existence of natural laws, or existence preclude supernatural laws, or existence? The very definition of “supernatural” says that it is outside of nature – thus, study of natural, or natural laws, would have no bearing on it.

Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of
intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs.

Oh, but they aren’t hedging their bets at all… really! I find the injection of pragmatism at the end slightly humorous. “To human needs.” Nothing like a bit of old-fashioned egotism to make things “objective”, is there?

Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

Heh. “We have here a specimen, which we have labeled “God”. It consists of 3 parts “eternal essence”, 5 parts “immensity”, 1 part “incomparability”, and 3 parts “immutability”. We’d like a full analysis on it by 3 pm today, if you please.”

Funny stuff.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has
passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of
“new thought”.

I understand what they mean by rejecting theism and deism – anything that is not man, has no authority. But… why is it they reject “modernism” and “new thought”? The second two, on the surface, look suspiciously like their beliefs. Modernism, as I understand it, was a rejection of traditionalism in all forms. Post-modernism was a return to tradition – sometimes in an exaggerated form.

I found this quote earlier: “Modernism as a philosophy is based almost exclusively on
rational and empirical foundations. The goal is to completely separate the knower from the thing
known so that it can be analyzed dispassionately and objectively.” This makes sense, now that I think of it. They want to be the arbiters, as humans – while being humans themselves. It makes sense that they want to keep judge and judged the same – not separate them.

New Thought, after some research, is “mental healing”, by “feeling good” about yourself. Positive feelings, etc. That makes some sense – even to me 😀

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions,
purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant.

Hrmm. That is an odd statement – unless your only focus is self. This is selfishness – raised to the standard of formal worship.

Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science,
philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its
degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The
distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be
maintained.

Well, I find some human things alien. Murdering unborn children. Gas chambers. Mass murder. Psychopathic torture/killings. Rape. I could go on. I find many things that are human to be repulsive. If humanity defines it’s own morals – humanity must live with those who define them differently. Or break it’s own rules. I find that repulsive, too.

Who said there was a distinction? Oh, wait… people who want to remove “spiritual” into non-existence – and exalt the physical to its place. The sacred things are the things of God – and everything is God’s. The world, and all it contains. Including us. There is no division.

Silly.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the
complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s
life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and
now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

That is so… empty. “Developing your personality” is all there is?? What an utterly banal bunch of drivel. I don’t care if it’s here and now, or for all of eternity. Social passion… hah. We see all the wonderful examples all around us. No, really… your passion is awe-inspiring.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes
involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious
emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a
cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

So, why is it that everyone, when they focus on self, find themselves excluding all others? Because, well.. they are being selfish? The two are incompatible. Don’t try to make them compatible. It’s an exercise in frustration. To be selfless means that you die to self – and live for others. (God first, in the Christian perspective.)

Focus on self, and any attempt to focus on others will simply be nonsense.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no
uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto
associated with belief in the supernatural.

I’d like to know, since they claim to be replacing religion – how they follow up the last statement with this one. Men seek the religious “experience” because it is natural to do so. So, however much they would like to banish all “emotional” experiences of the type religion inspires – it will not, and cannot happen. It is “hardwired” into humanity. I find it interesting that they label it “emotion”. It often comes with emotional ties – but worship, and the experience you have while worshipping, is far from simply “emotional”. When you deny the spirit, you deny half of humanity’s existence. The far greater part. I find it interesting, if unspeakably misguided, that they try to introduce empiricism into something which, due to it’s nature, cannot be empirically measured. Only observed from the outside. How can you measure spiritual connection? Or, for that manner… emotion? You can judge from the statements made by a person – but that in no way expresses what they felt – or what, exactly, it affected them – or how, exactly, that it came about. They have no idea.

So what do they do? Obfuscate the issue, by calling spiritual things “emotion” – which, there is a mistaken notion about. The notion that humanity has “discovered” or “scientifically analyzed” emotion. Any such claim is complete drivel. So, what is it they are doing? They are pulling a bait and switch. They change the nomenclature to reflect something which men *think* is known, to replace something which men *think* is known. They replace Spirit with Emotion – and tell you which emotions are acceptable to feel. As if there is any way to really examine and analyze emotion. There is not. We physically medicate certain problems – but that does not solve the problem. We use tactics which improve, to an extent, the basis of emotional problems – but we cannot measure emotion. We cannot test emotion. We can only *feel* emotion.

Emotion is the fallback measure of the defeated. It is the stop that is pulled out when logic fails, and you wish to sway something to believe – in *spite* of what they know to be true. Emotion is the gambit of the sophist – not the logician. They don’t want logic from you. They want feeling.

Because, as we have seen, and will see – the logical conclusion of humanism is not a very nice sight to behold.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of
life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and
probability.

I’m sorry. This statement just made me laugh. “their naturalness and probability”?

So, let’s ask a question: What is natural? Since we are dealing with crises, the question most likely lies in the realm of the “everyday”. Deaths, marital strife, financial difficulties, unexpected problems, etc.

Are they natural? Yes, in one aspect. They are normal – as in, they happen as a part of life. Everyone encounters trials, difficulties, and problems. If you describe “normal” as “within the physical world” – you have to take entropy into account. Humanity craves order – and craves freedom. The natural world breeds chaos, and attempts to enslave us. This may be “natural”, in that limited sense. However, there is a deeper question, which they entirely bypass, in order to make this ringing statement. “Should it be?”

When someone dies – very, very rarely do you hear “it’s only what is supposed to happen – why are you so upset about it?” Is death natural?

When someone encounters a problem, or difficulty – is it not often our first reaction to declare that it’s “just not fair”? Is fairness natural?

When someone is told they are wrong – they try to defend why they are right. If there is only a sliding scale, where everyone can be right, or wrong, according to their individual, or collective standards – is “right and wrong” natural?

The introduction of the concept “natural” into a discussion of behavior when you are in the midst of a trial is odd, at best – absurd, at worst. If it is “natural” – why is it a trial, a problem, or a crisis at all? If the trials are natural, why do we insist, rather loudly, that it is “not right”? Could it be, perhaps, that we all have a sense of how it “ought to be”? The “ought to be’s” throughout history, where we encounter things which hurt us – these are the result of something within us – something which tells us, “this ought not to be so”.

When two people quarrel, as C.S. Lewis famously said – there is seldom an instance where, during a dispute, the one accused does not attempt to defend his actions. All men assume that there is a “ought to”, and “ought not to”. The defense is an appeal to mitigating circumstances, under which he should be excepted – or a reason why the rule (which both of them expect the other to know about) does not apply here. Very rarely, as he puts it, does someone say “to hell with your standard”.

We all know what “ought to be”. This assumption of “natural” assumes just the same thing – while pretending that the source of a universal rule has some natural source. It doesn’t. Nature works very differently. Nature tells us that the strongest, smartest, or most vicious wins – is “right”. Never does it tell us that the “most natural” is the most ethical. In fact, as most societies in history can tell us – this is exactly how it works. It works in dictatorships the world ’round.

So… is introducing order – moral law, in an “amoral” world, natural?

I wonder… just what exactly are they trying to say?

About Probability.

How probable is it that a massive explosion/implosion at the center of the universe resulted in the formation of space, time, matter, and energy in their current, or a similar, form?

Furthermore, that from this rough matter and energy, coherent celestial bodies would form? Furthermore, on which non-life would “evolve” into life? Or that this “original life form” would further evolve into more complex life – in billions of stages, to result in a being which wants to defy the very laws of nature – to turn disorder into order.

That is what we are. A singularly unnatural being, in a singularly unnatural state of being. We want to improve things. We want to build, explore, enhance, rule, order, and better ourselves.

The “natural” in us is that which wants to destroy, conquer, tear down, dominate, control, and exalt ourselves. We see this in nature constantly. One side or the other is what “ought to be”.

Which is it?

If so – is it the “natural” (like nature), or the unnatural (unlike nature)?

Nature is broken. We are broken along with it – but we retain our desire to return the “ought to” to it’s rightful place. “Is.”

Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by
education and supported by custom.

Some interesting dichotomies here. “Reasonable” is very nebulous here. “Manly”, I will assume, is “like men”. (as “humanly” is “like human” – “men” being the general address.)

What is reasonable, or unreasonable here? Who defines it? Man? Which one(s)?

When you educate, you teach about life. About what life is, and what it is not. Once again, we have an “accepted” definition, and an “unacceptable” definition. Which is the “ought”?

How do you determine such a thing, and who determines it?

We assume that humanism will
take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage
sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

Social/mental hygiene?

Sentimental – what were they just saying about emotion? Oh, that “the humanist’s social passion” was just a load of hot air then? Their utopian world of a “just and fair” humanity really hasn’t panned out that well this century. Has it now? It seems to me that the most “non-religious” societies have been the ones doing the most death dealing. Socialism anyone?
Spare me the rhetoric – I’m not buying your shuck and jive about your “making the world better”.

Unreal hopes? Like, oh, that men can stop slaughtering each other long enough to promote world peace? Like, that man can truly *want* justice – where his wrongs are actually punished – completely, and fairly?

Show me such a place – and even such a person, outside of religion – and I’ll listen seriously to him. I’m not talking about mealy-mouthed platitudes. I’m talking about action – which is actually taken, not just discussed ad infinitum.

Wishful thinking? Like, oh, that humanity even HAS a desire to help the rest of humanity? That they are willing to do what is required to make a truly “human-centric” society – and not do it in such a way that personal “rights” overpower social order?

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work
increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster
the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the
satisfactions of life.

Joy? Is that another one of those wishful thinking things? In living? Oh, that must explain the horrendous rise in suicides, depression, and violence. “Joy in living”, outside religion, in an increasingly human-centric society. Human-centric, by the by, is referring to the principle that humanity’s wishes are the sole aim of human effort. Creativity is fine. Achievements are wonderful. Satisfaction is great. From what, I wonder, with no spirit, and only some emotions considered “real”… does the meaning of these things stem from? What is creative, and what is crap? What is an achievement, and what an atrocity? What is satisfaction, and what is despair? How do you determine the meaning of these things – when you have well-nigh erased the concepts which undergird them?

The Spiritual.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that
all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of
human life.

There is another one of those undefined value statements again. From whence does this value come? How can you be fulfilled? What are you filled by? What is full? How do you become that way – or recognize when that is? How do you measure “fulfillment”?

I have a small question for them, though – what do drug cartels contribute to “the fulfillment of human life”? Not all associations exist for their fulfillment, or other’s fulfillment – nor will they ever do so. Self, when we come down to it, is all. By making it “humanity” as a general, nebulous totality – they get to skip those pesky little annoying questions about life. Like, “so… you say that is right – I say it’s wrong. We can’t both be right, because we are diametrically opposed. Which is right?”

Logic must be too hard for some.

The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control,
and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to
the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of
humanism.

Ah, here’s that kicker. “Conform! Be like stalks! Commune with each other! Agree!”

It’s not going to happen. What was that about “unreal”, “wishful thinking,” and such?

Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic
forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to
function effectively in the modern world.

Ah, yes, of course. Thank you for granting us the “boon” of “reconstitution”. What a load of crap! I function quite well in “modern life”, thank you very much. I can even design my own website, all by my little “unenlightened” self. Thank you ever so much for the gracious grant of my own personal freedom to do whatever you say I can. No, really.

Wonder how well it would go over, if Christianity issued a manifesto, declaring that all unbelievers shall hereby conform to all rituals, practices, and attendance of local services – to “integrate” them into “normal” life.

Oh, it’d go over great, wouldn’t it?

What a load of unmitigated absurdity!

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced
that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown
itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods,
controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and
cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the
equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The
goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people
voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.
Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Communism! The great equalizer! No ownership!

Uh, guys? We tried that. A couple hundred thousand people died. Whole nations self-destructed. It sucks!!!

Oh wait… university professors like Communism! It’s awesome!!!!11!!!eleven.

*yawn*.

(/rant)

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism
will:

Assert all you want. I’m still waiting on your grand plan, notwithstanding the secular tenor which now permeates society.

Here is a news flash, though. Man is too lazy to bother worshipping an ideal in earnest. Man worships a reality – not a “one day” utopia.

(a) affirm life rather than deny it;

While they deny the existence of spirit?

(b) seek to elicit the
possibilities of life, not flee from them;

As they flee from anything not purely physical?

and ( c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not
merely for the few.

I would never be satisfied by such a venal, nebulous, shifting, and kaleidoscopic “satisfaction”.

Until such a time as they acknowledge the existence of spiritual things – they have established nothing real. They have established only a pale, quavering shadow of reality, wherein lives flicker like a candle’s flame beneath the wind of life’s difficulties – and cower before the onslaught upon their collective wills. Humanism is nothing but a shade – a dark, misty reflection of reality.

I reject it, and anything which claims that humanity is the “highest good”. Humanity is a chorus of wastrels, besotted upon their own self-worth, and glutted on self-love. I can do nothing but laugh at a self-delusion which claims to hold out hope – while denying any sort of hope but a temporal, and temporary kind.

By this positive morale and intention

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the
techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Upstream, without a direction, course, or captain. They have aligned nothing. They have set up a temple of “good intentions”, at which the dreams and aspirations of those who recognize the inner spiritual nature of man will be sacrificed to the god of self.

So stand the theses of religious humanism.

“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the
quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind.

the quest for the good life?

You really, really have to be kidding me. Christianity claims that man’s goal is to be perfect, as God is perfected – and that we will one day be perfected. Oh, a good life is oh, so noble an aspiration! Not. Please!

A life lived well – in service to others, in denial of self, in glory to God, in love of Him, His Word, and His children – THIS is man’s goal. You are nothing but a pitiful shadow of truth, humanism.

Slink back to your “good” life, your pragmatism, your materialism, your dreamless slumber from which you are never more than half awake. You die the death of your thousands of wasted days, your thousands of wasted opportunities, and your sickness unto death – the preoccupation with yourself, and your own welfare.

Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the
realization of the world of his dreams,

The price for this “realization” is that dreams are just too much of a problem, when you face “reality” – a world with only the misty haze of physicality, the wavering undulations of change, and the sweltering oppression of “ought”.

that he has within himself the power for its achievement.

Only, he must not set his dreams too high. He must not think that there is more to life than this time in a sack of flesh. He must not think that this time on earth is only a preparation for things more wonderful than he can even conceive – let alone dream – of. He must not come to the realization that nothing he can find on this earth will truly satisfy.

He must not say “Vanity, vanity – all is vanity! There is nothing new under the sun!”

He must not trust in the Lord, and lean not on his own understanding. He might just find his path straightened. That just would not do. Such unrealistic things are just not done. They just wouldn’t be “real” enough.

He must set intelligence and will to the task.

“Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind?”

We should never ask that question. It’s just not empirical!

“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

*Gasp* – a will other than our own? What sort of madness is this!

Above all…

Never ask this question.

“If a man dies, will he live {again?}”

You may have to wait for it – not have it in the “here and now”. Humanism is fast-food religion.

“All the days of my struggle I will wait Until my change comes.”

We have to wait? Really? Then what?

Just listen to Handel’s Messiah – “The trumpet shall sound“.

“in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.”

Humanism makes a dangerous claim. That there is no spirit, that there is no God, and that there is nothing outside of man to give him meaning.

It is a lie – and it is not even a clever lie.

Vox will be up late this evening. Probably very late.

So… look for it tomorrow morning, sometime.

I had a bunch of late entries – and I’m finishing mine up.

You’ll enjoy it though – I promise.

Will be hosted here – and, if all goes well…

It’ll have a surprise thrown in.

The subject is: “Glory to Man in the Highest: Humanism’s Dangerous Claim”.

This is my “pet subject” – so gimme something good 😀

Send submissions to: this address.