• Immediate Needs

    updated 8.29.11

    We do what we do as missionaries supported by people like you.

    We also prefer to give away as much content as we can, and not cloud that issue with a lot of public requests. That said, we do have specific needs that are met by people who believe the work we do has value.

    If you'd like a short list of immediate financial needs, you can find it HERE.

    Thanks!

    Note: This will be updated regularly

  • Recent interview on the Patricia King Show.

  • YouVersion Reading Plans
  • Old News

  • TwitterFeed

Humanism Evolves…

I think you can tell the strength of an idea lies not in where it is, but in where it goes.   Great ideas go somewhere.  They progress from beta to 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0, etc.   The bare facts remain, but the implementation gets better over time.  This is why the modern rubber car tire is essentially still a wheel, yet vastly improved from the stone disks that were the beta wheel.

Some ideas don’t make the jump to the next level.  At some point, they become overextended.  Their evolution proves their shortcomings.  These ideas are best left in beta, where expectations are low and buggy functions are overlooked.

Humanism only works in beta.  As soon as it starts to roll towards a production version, it disappoints.

Greg Epstien, the humanist chaplain at Harvard, thinks he’s ready to roll out Humanism 1.0 – a sort of organizational humanism that fills in the gaps that a buggy, beta humanism has been known for.  And what’s the standard he’s using?  The church.

This morning, this story hit the AP wire and was picked up by news agencies everywhere.    The article says:

Epstein wants to plant local humanist centers nationwide that perform many of the community-building functions of a church, only in service of the humanist creed. He will promote his idea as he tours the country to promote his book, “Good Without God,” which is scheduled to be published by HarperCollins later this year.

Good without God is not a new idea.  People of non-faith have periodically tried to  demonstrate a level of morality apart from a righteous standard.  Nevertheless, it’s rarely got very far past the theoretical, or perhaps the one-off project.   Unbelieving individuals have certainly contributed to society, but organized, anti-faith individuals have rarely stayed organized long enough to do much good.   You will search long and hard to find an Atheists Children’s Hospital or a humanitarian program that is solely dedicated to the idea of the individual.*  The very nature of individualism makes it difficult for those sorts to cooperate on anything beyond themselves.   The phrase ‘herding cats’ comes to mind.

Epstein is touted as starting small groups for humanists, dedicated to hashing out shared beliefs.  To me, these sound like a nightmare.  Try facilitating a discussion about shared beliefs when the one shared belief is that each person’s beliefs are supreme in themselves.  Again, I refer you to the idea of herding cats, but this time the cats are rabid.

In the closing part of  the article, he says…

“Salvation is here on earth…We have evolved over 14 billion years without purpose. Now we want purpose, we need to build it into our own lives.”

This smacks of the ego that humanists are characterized by….that suddenly, after all these years of history, they are the ones who can build a purpose into their lives.  All those generations before were somehow sub-developed, lesser men not capable of yearning for purpose…and here we are, not only capable of wanting it, but of making it on our own.

You’re right about this, Chaplain Epstein.  Humanity needs community.  Humanity needs purpose.   Where you’re wrong is in thinking we are suddenly so much better than our ancestors that we will be satisfied long term with the answers we find within ourselves.

___

*To clarify, there are a number of ungodly motivated humanitarian efforts, but few anti-faith efforts.  Largely, these ungodly efforts embrace all faiths – surely a low road for intellectuals trying to synergies incompatible realities, but one smooth enough to allow for substantial buy-in from many different faiths, providing no one thinks too much about what’s going on.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. “Again, I refer you to the idea of herding cats, but this time the cats are rabid….”

    I literally laughed out loud at this one… not many blogs make me do that. Good job… and good thoughts too beyond the manic-cat-syndrome humour.

  2. Two thoughts:
    A key aspect of the shortfall of “good without God” is the fact that they and so many other mere religions miss out on: the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, working in our hearts to “will and to do the good pleasure of God” (Phil 2:13) and “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is the mystery that was hidden for ages.

    Also, do people living apart from God really want to be good? No, they typically want to live for the moment, induldging in all the worldly pleasures they can grab. They may not want to be evil, good is just too boring for them. They might as well go back to church!

  3. Randy-
    I have a request. Could you please write an article about Christians having the ability to study religion academically, use their reason, hear arguments from other religions and people that don’t believe what you believe; and still come out with clear biblical understanding and even your resolve and faith in Jesus strengthened (that was one huge run on sentence) I’m needing to hear something about this. Thanks.

  4. I love the way you expressed the critical issue. Humanism, atheisim, etc can sound good in “beta” but no one wants to follow it through to its logical conclusion. Those that do often end up committing great evils or enter great depression.
    Where are those in the church who will challenge the Dawkins of our day demonstrating that the conclusion of their beliefs is horrific? I’m also glad to hear someone trumpeting their arrogance. That’s one of the things that unnerves me the most.

  5. This is absolutely true. I just read an article in Christianity Today about Peter Singer, who is someone who really is serious about taking humanism from beta. The ideas he seriously believes in include support for abortion being extended to 28 days AFTER birth… He doesn’t believe being a living human being alone is what gives someone value. He believes human life should be considered no more valuable or special than any animal life. I suppose at least he’s the first really honest athiest, working out the logical conclusions of atheism… But how he doesn’t see the horror involved in those conclusions, I don’t know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: