A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

I was asked to start a topic on my personal religious bias against the three documents that make up the Humanist Manifesto.
Humanist Manifesto
Humanist Manifesti II
Humanist Manifesto IIIEverything that I have read from Biblical Christians (who critics call conservative,uninformed, and in a realm of fantasy versus reality) indicates that the world will by and large reject all forms of organized religion due to the fundamentalist oppressive nature of its tenets and will embrace a form of belief in the human animal and our collective potential known as secular humanism.What does the evidence show us regarding international relations, global finance, the steady decline of the United States both morally and financially, and the rise of false religion the world over?Are the secular humanists right? Is religion and ancient beliefs threatening a logical and rational future for our planet and ourselves?Or are the Christian literalists right? Are we all doomed to a bleak future by our actions of rejecting God and seeking to deify ourselves as the ultimate source of wisdom and logic?Faith & Belief, pleaseEdited by Phat, : spelling

Lets look at the original Humanist ManifestoSeveral of the statements contained within this document concern me.

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. So which doctrines and methods do the humanists(most of whom seem to be Unitarians or atheists) find so outdated?

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. So I'm curious how this new statement differs from the Bible and/or traditional belief. The humanists then go on to affirm no less than 15 basic belief statements...many of which I disagree with. Lets take each one individually.

​

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

Absolute rubbish! Are they in essence saying the universe created itself or always existed? Where do they get off on denying even so much as the possibility of a Creator? This is what I mean when I said these manifestos were arrogant!

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

This one isn't so bad. The only danger I see in this affirmation is to state that man is no more special or unique than any other animal. It is quite obvious that no other animal has approached our level of development. God appeared to us as a man. Not a dolphin. Not a Bird. Not an alien. I see no problem with a cautious belief and acknowledgement of biological evolution...provided that ancient religious beliefs are not simply discarded wholesale as human ignorance. There is much that the scientific mind of today cannot prove nor disprove regarding spirituality. Absence of evidence should never conclude evidence of absence.

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

Do they mean the substance or Cartesian dualism made popular through the teachings of Rene Descartes? Are they advocating Holistic Health? If so, I believe that humanity is triparte:

​

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.

I would agree except to state that God was made man in order to interact with humanity and that even though this is only a belief it is not fair or proper to reject this belief. After all, who made the humanists any sort of final authority on belief?

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.

The sad thing is, you would probably agree with them on this, jar. And to say that you are a Christian! You have denied Christ in favor of logic, reason, and reality. Its ironic that the so-called reality you embrace is but an illusion in the grand scheme of things. The humanists will, however someday find out that they were wrong all along. The Holy Spirit trumps any sort of scientific "spirit" mentioned.

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

Right here says it all. They have declared themselves in opposition to Theism.

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.

I have no problem with this one.

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.

It is good to focus on the present. It is all we really have.

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.

This is expected from people who have nothing to pray to.

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

Here comes the gestapo again! The thought police outlawing any expression of worship towards the supernatural which they in their arrogance and ignorance cannot see.

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.

Discouragement in fantasy is to be encouraged. To label Christian belief as fantasy, however, is going outside of their pay grade. God created them before they had a clue of what to even make up.

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.

I have no problem with this one.

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.

define "reconstituted".....

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.

This is where global finance comes in to play. I am for a more fair and just world, but will not surrender my own means of survival to a centralized control so as to redistribute wealth. Furthermore, there aint no global organization gonna ever slap a chip in my hand or insist that I must join their system in order to buy or sell anything. period!

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.

Consensus has not yet been achieved. There will have to be more give and take before such a unified system is allowed to govern the affairs of this planet. May Gods wisdom prevail.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

Some folks believe that there are many truths. I believe there is one truth. Some folks believe that there are many ways to believe and that it is arrogant to assume that one has the correct belief if such a thing exists. Perhaps I am arrogant, but I find it hard to compromise without weakening my basic stance. Quite likely I am, as Dr.A. suggests, a presuppositionalist.

Where did i invent any false accusations? jar is the only one whining that I always misrepresent him. At any rate, lets move on to Humanist Manifesto II shall we?

quote:

---

It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook.

---

They start out sounding a bit more realistic. Humans are a bit more evil than they presupposed. Science and critical thinking can't solve everything! Its about time the humanists came around...or is it? Still rejecting Theism, I see. So what is it they suggest we have faith in? Yes...but OK, I'll give everyone this one. Historically, religion has separated more often than it has united people. This is, however, not the fault of Jesus Christ....or is it? So we must ask ourselves if that was part of Jesus plan
and if so, why?
Back to the manifesto II: Sound rather noble so far... This seems more realistic than the first manifesto where they sought to eliminate theism altogether! Lets continue...
They discuss Religion specifically. See Tangle, they are speaking your language! You also, PaulK. Jar,you have often mentioned responsibility as being the ingredient lacking in Biblical Christianity. Sounds like these humanists are preaching to a friendly choir here at EvC apart from dogmatic obstructionists such as myself! Of course I disagree. We cannot save ourselves. I am quite sure that most of you feel the same as these humanists affirm, however. Lets continue. See, Tangle. They speak your language! Hmmmm is that directed towards Hillary or The Donald? In other words, they would deride the basic Biblical Christian assumption of Original Sin. They do have a positive outlook, however. I like the fact that they stress the need for humility. I won't argue this position. Who would want to? Although the fundamentalists and charismaniacal Christians won't agree with this stance, I believe that it is inevitable and is in and of itself not a bad thing. Tolerance should be encouraged. My only concern regarding sexuality is whether humans really understand what love is beyond love for each other. Look at the words of Jesus: I personally believe that human love is incomplete without the first commandment. Humanists believe in humans more than they believe in God. Thus we disagree. No argument here. I agree with this. Inevitable, though I am not in favor of making Christianity equal with everything else...dogmatic obstructionist that I am. Pray for me. No objection there. My only protest here is that this is economically impossible to implement at a global level. The standard of living would drop too far. I don't know what alternatives would avoid this, however. They advocate a basic new world order and one world government. I am not optimistic regarding our readiness for such a system nor our ability to govern it. I believe that God should be at the head of any world government...though it appears He has not returned yet to assume His throne. Great in theory...but how could they hope to turn off global violence? How will they implement global discipline to achieve such aims? The United States won't like being displaced as global cop by a one world system. No argument here. And how will terrorism suddenly go away? How will that problem be solved? So there you have it.
Comments?

If things were going well and we were being nicer to each other, I see no reason God would need to intervene. If, however, we short-circuited, or somehow were doing something that displeased God, I suppose that He would have every right to intervene. Time will tell, I suppose.Oh and by the way, jar always wanted me to throw God away. It seemed preposterous until I actually realized that IF GOD exists, I shouldn't have any worries of disposing of Him. Edited by Phat, : added comment

You can answer your own question by answering this: What is the need for a second coming?

If Christ is coming back, He is coming back for everyone...not just those who believe in Him or those who subscribe to a particular subset of dogma. And to answer your question, Divine Intervention is needed if humans fail. In the past, the nation itself would repent and pray for Divine Intervention. These days its hard telling what people would do.

You don't get it? Shall I say thats pitiful?

You want me to defend your position? Touche

Well anyway, lets move on to the Humanist Manifesto III the final of three manifestos. I guess I find nothing wrong with this affirmation. Rational thought is always better than jumping to dogmatic conclusions. I wish I could be so optimistic, but I am haunted by the beliefs that I adopted which said that in the so-called End Times people would reject organized religion and embrace just this sort of philosophy. A character known as the AntiChrist would then come to power and cause living hell for 7 years or so before Jesus came back and took names...correcting the evil attempt at dominance. Im not sure exactly what I believe regarding end times any more. If jar is right and Original Sin was only a made-up con job than this statement will work. Otherwise we are headed for trouble. If anything at all worries me about this third manifesto, it is the idea of an interdependent one world system. I am skeptical whether such a system will preserve our standard of living. I am skeptical whether or not folks will get along naturally. I am fearful of the dogma I was taught concerning the last days and whether or not it will come true. I am honestly fearful of throwing god away.Finally, even though i am a dogmatic obstructionist at heart, I am one of the better ones...for I am smarter than most of them. I worry about what the Biblical Christians will do when faced with the possibility of such a world. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

It applies only in that the Humanist manifestos are similar to what many Christian End Timers have been saying will be the new touchy feely global religion---a religion free of dogma and absolutes where humans simply love each other---no God needed.
I could almost see Donald Trump entering the Temple and telling God He was fired!
The Antichrist will affirm the god within all of us and claim that there is no external Deity---that we are the only god there ever will be.(Sounds a bit like Greatest I AM)
Gnostic Humanist Christianity---aligned with a new pacifist Islam and other former global religions...seems like a great idea but again, as i have said before...only if jars belief that there is no such thing as Original Sin is proven true. In which case jar would be right in that there is no need for Divine Intervention nor a Second Coming. He believes that WE humans are ultimately responsible.
Time will tell which belief turns out to be correct.

Any discussion of original sin can continue here. I seriously doubt whether all or even most Of the so-called Christian End timers believe this way. They know darn well that money will be all but worthless. They like gold, however. As far as the touchy feely...we realize that feeding the world is noble. What we worry about is the idea that god is in all of us and that an external Deity is un needed. This will prove to be a giant lie for society...to fall for this innocent and benevolent sounding altruistic belief.

I don't plan to vote for Trump. He won't get elected.As for the yearning for the good old days, I will admit that this may be a problem for many so-called Biblical Christians. Jesus would have no problem suffering...but we do.

To be honest, reality "changed" when I got saved. I know it sounds illogical and that there are ready psychological explanations for this, but I believe that I was filled with a new worldview. The church didnt brainwash this, though the teachings largely confirmed it. And this is what jar tries to teach. The reason that I dont agree with his beliefs is because he doesnt get the "saved" thing....and i confess I didnt expect it. I changed totally in one day...critics will argue that even Saul becoming Paul was a minor thing...but I am convinced that this phenomenon happens. I know you guys have the more logical argument here...objectively at least.