THE NATURALISTIC FACE OF HUMANISM
Robert L. Waggoner[1]
Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists. This belief has religious connotations. Naturalism requires that nature be the means by which the origin and processes of all things are explained. It means that naturalism is the key to all knowledge. It means that nature is the lord of man.
Naturalism Is Religious
Naturalism requires that certain divine characteristics be attributed to nature. First, if nature is all there is, and power operates within nature, (such as in weather conditions, in the force of a mighty river; in the growth of living plants and animals, etc.), then nature, rather that a supernatural being, must be considered all powerful. Second, if nature is all there is, and intelligence is operative within nature, (through design, order, wisdom, beauty, etc.), then nature, rather than a supernatural being, must be considered all wise. Third, if nature is all there is, then nature, because it exists, must be considered self-existing. This implies that nature is eternal ‑ another attribute of deity.
Origins of Naturalism
Although
naturalism arose in the eighteenth century, it received no universal following
because it had no explanation of the mechanics by which nature originated or is
sustained. However, when Charles Darwin published in 1859 his Origin of Species, he gave some
plausible mechanisms for the theory of organic evolution, and with that,
provided, for many who were wanting it, an excuse for their denial of the
supernatural. Naturalism then gained credibility, and became a major foundation
stone for modern humanism.[2]
Significance of Naturalism
The
theory of organic evolution is primarily biological. However, if the process of
evolution is true in biology, then the same evolutionary process may also be
assumed to be operative in the origins and continuation of all things. A
supernatural God is therefore no longer needed to explain origins or continuing
events of nature. Humanism generally denies the existence of a supernatural being.[3]
If
the theory of evolution is true, then it must of necessity effect every area of
human knowledge. If there is no supernatural, then human knowledge cannot be
acquired through divine revelation, (that is, the Bible). Naturalism requires
that knowledge be acquired only from nature, and only through the natural
processes. This is also affirmed by humanism.[4]
Humanism
also states that since human knowledge is limited by naturalism to whatever can
be ascertained through nature, then whenever man seeks to know about himself,
he can only learn from nature whatever nature chooses to reveal by its own
processes.[5]
Relationship Between Man and Nature
These beliefs of humanism suggest that nature is the eternal regulatory force and intelligence which humanity must accept. By this reasoning, man must submit to nature, and live harmoniously with it. However, man refuses to accept his natural environment as his Lord. Man must change it, and regulate it. Man wants to be Lord over Nature. This desire is expressed in the Preface to the second Humanist Manifesto.
The
next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific,
technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our
awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome
the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new
age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using
technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly
reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter
the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers,
and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant
and meaningful life. . . . Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring
measures. We need to extend the uses of the scientific method, not to renounce
them. . . . Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to
pursue.
The
concluding sentences of the first Humanist
Manifesto declared that “Man is
at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible . . .” This idea that man
should rule over nature is not new. In his commentary on the Old Testament book
of Judges, James B. Jordan compares the modern religion of secular humanism to
the worship of Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility god.
So
what was Baalism? In essence it was the ascription of power to Nature: The
universe has within itself the force of life. The world as we know it is the
result of the union of the ultimate male and female principles of the universe,
which may be called Baal and Ashteroth (or Astartes). (A similar goddess is
Asherah, mistranslated as groves in the King James Version. The difference
between the two goddesses is technical, and both were expressions of the same
religious principle.) Canaanite philosophers believed, of course, that these
ultimate forces were impersonal, and that their union was not sexual; but the
common people preferred to think of the matter mythically. The sun god
copulated with the origin mud of the world, and the animals and man resulted.
How does such a myth differ from a more sophisticated expression of the same
principle, such as can be found in any 20th century high school science
textbook? Once, we are told, there was a vast primordial sea. Then one day,
sparked by sunlight, an organic molecule appeared, which evolved to become our
present world. A male principle, sunlight, inseminates a female principle, the
primordial sea, and life is born.
The
Baal-Asteroth religion understandably was intimately concerned with fertility.
The Creator God of the Bible had promised fertility to Israel if they were
faithful to Him (Dt. 7:13‑14), but what He demanded was moral loyalty,
including especially sexual chastity (monogamy). The religion of Baal, however,
advocated exactly the opposite method of getting fertility. Chaotic sexual
orgies would stimulate Nature (human, animal, and crop fertility). The true
religion of Israel said that fertility was obtained by submitting to the
Creator, while Baalism said that fertility was obtained by stimulating Nature.
Thus, in true religion, man is the servant/slave of God, in submission to Him;
while in Baalism, man is the lord of his god (Nature) who needs to be
stimulated by him.
Nature
religion is a religion of stimulation. Man has to stimulate Nature in order to
get results. Like the Baal priests of the ancient world, he may engage in
sexual orgies, or cut himself with knives (1 Kings 18:28), in order to arouse
the sleeping god. This is also the philosophy of the modern world. Stimulating
nature is not seen (as in Christian faith) simply as a form of technological
dominion. It is also seen as a way of salvation, so that modern medical
scientists believe they will solve the problem of disease by learning how to
control nature, and modern philosophers believe that controlling nature will
permit man to control evolution and advance humanity, while modern
revolutionaries from Marx to Marcuse believe that simply stimulating society
through the imposition of social chaos will automatically lead to a better
world.[6]
Nowhere
in our modern world is the use of scientific technology more desired than it is
regarding AIDS. Our American society is demanding much more extensive
scientific research to give us salvation from AIDS. All that is really needed,
however, is for society to follow the biblical prohibitions against
homosexuality (cf. Leviticus 18:22; 22:13; Romans 1:26‑27;
1 Corinthians 6:9‑10; 1 Timothy 1:8‑11; 2 Peter 2:6‑10; Jude
7). Refusal to follow the biblical requirement is a practical
denial of the existence of God by a society which otherwise generally voices
belief in God!
Until such time as scientific researchers may develop the technology to halt death by homosexuality, our humanist controlled society is being educated to continue its fornicating lifestyle by the use of condoms and other contraceptive devices. Humanism as naturalism is alive and thriving in modern America!
Impact Of Naturalism Upon Christianity
The
impact of naturalism upon Christianity in America is enormous. Naturalism
contributes immensely to the destruction of Christian homes and also to society
as a whole. Naturalism dominates the nations compulsory educational
establishment from top to bottom. When Christian parents send their children to
public schools, their children learn the philosophy of naturalism. They are
taught that nature is all there is, that there is no God, that the Bible
consists of myths, legends and superstitions, that man evolved by chance to
become what he now is, that man has no soul, that there is no such thing as
sin, and therefore no need for salvation from the eternal consequences of sin.
Since naturalism teaches that there is no God, then it concludes that human
beings will not stand in judgment before God, that there will be no life after
death, and therefore that there is no heaven and no hell.
While Christian parents insist that their children live by Christian values, their children may be under pressure from school teachers and fellow students to live by the values of naturalism. Children may therefore be torn between two diverse value systems. They may become confused regarding what is right and what is wrong. This often creates family tensions between parents and children, and far too frequently, results in children rebelling against their Christian parents.
Flaws Within Naturalism
To
overcome family deterioration caused by naturalism, we must teach that
naturalism is fatally flawed with unsolvable problems. In the first place, if
nature acts as it has been designed and programmed by nature to act, then all
actions of living things can only be classified as natural actions. Whatever
nature does must automatically be considered right. When snakes stick out their
tongues, when bears catch and eat fish, when birds fly south for the winter,
they are all acting naturally and rightly. Wild and domesticated animals act
naturally by instinct or as they have been trained. All actions of such animals
do not fall into a moral category.
The
physical conduct of human beings, however, while performed within natural
boundaries, is generally realized to come within a moral category. If nature is
all there is, and if man is only natural, then it might be considered natural
for a man to tell lies, to be adulterous, to murder, or even to be
cannibalistic, and such would then be considered right. If such conduct were
the basic nature of humanity, then it would not be natural to be truthful,
chaste, faithful or righteous. The fact that humanity is capable of opposite
types of conduct within the moral category, one righteous and one wicked,
indicates that humanity is not confined to natural activity. Therefore, nature
is not all there is.
All
men, whether humanists or Christians, insist that humanity must abide by
certain moral imperatives. The differences between humanists and Christians are
about which moral imperatives are applicable. Christians, believing that people
are responsible to God, accept moral imperatives from God. However, humanists,
believing that mankind is only natural, incorrectly departs from naturalism to
insist that people must act according to moral imperatives, not of nature’s
design, but of man’s own choosing!
For humanists, moral values are relative, situational, and autonomous. Humanists insist that there are no absolute moral values. However, that insistence is itself an absolute. What they are really saying is that there must be no arbitrary absolutes not of their own choosing. Humanists seem to think that absolutely nobody but humanists should be allowed to impose absolutes upon others!
A
second flaw of naturalism is that, in spite of its claim to be scientific,
naturalism cannot be supported either by the scientific method or by commonly
recognized principles of science. Scientific methodology requires both
observation and repetition, neither of which is applicable to the origin of the
universe since scientists were not there to witness it, nor does the universe
repeat its origination. Moreover, scientific principles of causality, analogy,
comprehensiveness and consistency all fail to support naturalism’s theory of
evolution. The principle of causality requires that every effect have a cause.
The theory of evolution, however, has no explainable cause to commend it. The
principle of analogy (or uniformity) requires that the present be explained in
terms of the past. Nothing in the present explains the evolutionary assumption
that life comes from non-life. The principles of comprehensiveness and
consistency also indicates that evolvement by chance of living creatures, even
over extremely long periods of time, is impossible.[7]
Other
known scientific principles also argue that nature could not have originated
through the process of evolution. The second law of thermodynamics, a well
proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to
deteriorate and decay whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe,
without scientific viability, that living things within nature evolve in an
upward progression of complexity.
Finally,
naturalism unrealistically presumes that its so-called scientific foundations
are unbiased and objective. However, studies in the philosophy of science have
clearly demonstrated that all natural sciences have preconceived philosophical
foundations. Natural scientists approach their experimentation with theories
derived from their own personal training and previous experiences. Among men
there is no such thing as absolute objectivity.
Scientific
pronouncements about the validity of evolution are founded, not upon any
knowledge derived from the scientific method, but from personal presuppositions
of the scientists. Belief in evolution is just that. It is a faith. In the
final analysis, naturalism, like humanism, is a religion!
Although
modern man wants to believe in naturalism, there are too many objections to its
validity. If naturalism were true, then man would not want to be lord over
nature, nor would it be flawed with unreasonable and unscientific difficulties.
Since humanism is built upon the foundation of naturalism and since naturalism
can be demonstrated to be false, then it follows that humanism is also false.
[1]Copyright © by Robert L.
Waggoner, 1988, Revised, 2000. Permission is granted to reproduce and
distribute this paper without alteration for non-commercial educational
purposes if copyright and author’s name are given. All other rights reserved.
[2]Humanist Manifesto I, First, Eleventh; Humanist Manifesto II, First.
[3]Humanist Manifesto I,
Sixth; Humanist Manifesto II,
Preface, First; A Secular Humanist
Declaration, 6.
[4]A Secular Humanist Declaration, 8; Corliss Lamont “Naturalistic Humanism,” The Humanist Alternative: Some Definitions
of Humanism, ed. by Paul Kurtz,
(Buffalo, NY: Promethus Press, 1973), 130.
[5]Humanist Manifesto I, Second, Third, Fourth; Humanist Manifesto II, Second.
[6]James
B. Jordan, Judges: Gods War Against
Humanism, (Tyler, TX: Geneva
Ministries, 1985), 35‑36.
[7]For
further discussion, read Norman L. Geisler, Is
Man The Measure? An Evaluation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 30‑150.