Genae Matthews wrote the article Secular humanism doesn’t compromise moral comfort” (The Wellesley News, May 5, 2017 AD) with the “aim to lay secular humanism on the table as a viable option for upholding the moral comfort of religion while mitigating any potential for radicalization.” Now, from this premise you can see that anything is a relatively easy sell since “comfort” is vague, generic and thus, subjective.
Of course, many Atheists have argued, or asserted, that one should chose Atheism because it feels good, is emotionally comforting, etc., see Being an atheist the best reason is that it feels oh, so good. He states, “One of the best features of organized religion is its ability to provide moral comfort to its adherents” which is why we have seen, for decades now, the advent of Atheist “churches” where they can make a cake in their own image, eat it—and are then hungry again half an hour later, but at least they got to play pretend with their easy bake oven.
There are two extremes to which Genae Matthews points and which he uses as a false dichotomy the horns of which are supposedly split by Secular Humanism.
One is, “The impetus for some of the world’s most violent wars has been religious disagreement” which his merely asserted as a fact without any attempt to support by, well, bothersome facts. Here is a quick reference for such a huge topic: the Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005 AD) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From an estimated 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars. Thus, the other fish to fry are large enough to swallow Jonah. Conversely, in a mere few decades within merely a portion of the 1900s AD, Atheists mass murdered circa 2,000,000 people.
Second is, “growing sect of radical atheists” referring to militant activists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, et al.
He then plays the enlightenment card and states “This trend” towards secularization “has as much to do with modern empiricism as it does with the sociocultural evolution of religious practices” and that “In the 21st century…academics and intellectuals alike tend to turn their backs to religious dogma.” This is mostly all hyped up Atheist propaganda based on supposed common knowledge which is common knowledge because it is mostly all hyped up Atheist propaganda. Part of it has to do with different views of anthropology, as we will see. One view is that a view of existence as being accidental and temporary fuels rebellion against God, causes secularists (by any other name) to attempt to rule academia with the iron fist of censorship, etc.
In any case, Genae Matthews seeks to sell a nice guy Atheism under the title “Secular Humanism” which he defines via three dogmas: 1) “Secular humanists argue that humans are capable of being ethical without needing to adhere to the doctrine of a God.”
Well, Biblical Christians could agree with the following qualifier in place: humans are capable of being ethical without needing to consciously adhere to the doctrine of a God because God’s law (the absolute ethos) is written on our hearts and administered via our conscience (even though we can sear it as with a hot iron 1 Timothy 4:2). Thus, admitting belief in God is not necessary as God’s ethos is a part of our very being, ontologically speaking.
2) “They endorse western ethical theories and social justice practices and assert that ideology should never be accepted on the basis of faith alone.”
Now, I generally find that secularists invent a conveniently shallow definition of “faith” and then argue against a definition of their own convenient making, see What is “faith”?. However, fascinatingly, he actually argues in favor of accepting Secular Humanism on “faith” by stating, “I take it that assent on the basis of faith does not have to solely entail loyalty to a deity” even whilst following up with the “importance of thoughtful consideration prior to accepting any ideology on faith alone.”
As for why accept Secular Humanism on “faith,” he clumsily give examples of how assent on the basis of faith also includes, “Followers of political movements are often inclined to endorse the positions of their leaders without analyzing those positions themselves. Even trivial cases such as using a certain face product because a celebrity has advocated doing so represents an assent on the basis of faith.”
Back to the anthropology issue, “Secular humanists also believe that humans are neither inherently good nor inherently bad, but rather that humankind is faced with a unique responsibility that entails us to be held morally accountable for our actions.” Well, this is an aspect of the myth of neutrality which is certainly faith based. Anyone dealing with children knows that they do not have to be taught to be selfish, for example, but have to be taught to share.
Lastly, Genae Matthews notes, “Secular humanism has the ability to serve all of these needs without the risk of being radicalized. Secular humanist sects promote the collective discovery of rational moral beliefs.”
That they do not have the “risk of being radicalized” is simply a convenient statement based on pretending that they are not “Atheists” and yet, secularism comes in very many forms under very many names as per very many sects/denominations, see here, and merely changing labels and claiming fail safes is merely that: PR marketing claims.
As for Secular humanist sects promote the collective discovery of rational moral beliefs,” note that Secular Humanists tend to support abortion. So, how some can have the chutzpah to call themselves a “Humanist” whilst supporting the brutal dismembering murder of millions upon millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies shows what a PR charade is Secular Humanism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.