Human Legacy
Humanism - the incessant belief in the limitless human capacity for advancement: in contrast to “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9) and “no temptation has seized you except what is common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). One assumption made on all humanist philosophies is the belief in the perfectibility of the human predicament. Man is born a blank slate who tends toward the good and is essentially perfectible. This is inherently opposite of the biblical treatise which says man is fallen and tends to sin - “If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives” (1 John 1:10).
Where does evil and the bad come from if man is essentially good and perfectible? The general humanist answer is that evil comes from the culture (in particularly Christian culture) but the problem then becomes why culture is evil. What is culture? Is it not made up by and of humans? So if man makes up his culture and his culture makes man evil, do we not just then make ourselves evil? It is circular reasoning. Culture cannot answer where evil comes from in a humanist viewpoint.
But to even look for evil in a humanist worldview is a moot point in itself, for the humanist has no foundations to call one thing evil or another good. Why? A moral standard to determine what is good and what is evil demands a transcendent standard setter. Without a ‘standard setter’ (one who determines what is good and what is evil), what is good and evil could not be determined outside of preferences and a preference has no moral value to itself what-so-ever.
But this is exactly what many humanists claim: why could we not slowly, through social contracts, determine what is right and wrong for us based upon group preferences? Well, what I hear you saying then is that one tribe befriends his neighbors and the other tribe eats his neighbor - and both tribes are driven by preference; what feels right. But the humanist has no foundation of morality and as a consequence cannot say that one is bad or the other is good.
But there is misery in this world none-the-less, and though they by all rights cannot call it evil, they do call it bad. What is their hope? They must have hope if they believe man is essentially perfectible. What is their mode of perfection? For most, it is scientific advancement - technology.
The interesting thing with technology though is that technology is morally neutral. Dynamite is no more evil and no more good than a prosthetic is. Technology can do great good just as well as it can do great evil, the only difference is the man behind the use of the technology. In all those movies you always hear “If this ever gets into the wrong hands....” - we inherently know this. Technological advancement may make things easier for us, but it will not make us better people any more than it will make us worse. Just think of this - in the hands of a good man, a gun can save millions (cops): in the hands of an evil man, a gun can kill millions (robbers). This may be over-simplified to a great extent, but the principle still stands, technology is only as good as the man using it just as technology will be as evil as the man using it is.
We wish to be good, that cannot ever be doubted. The majority of mankind does not go out his door and say, I wish to do something truly evil today. Nor does the common man, if honest, believe that he is perfectible. Evil is easy, that which is good is not always so appetizing, indeed many times good is hard because evil is so enticing. Truly we want to be good people, but we are truly fallen. Humanism does not have the ability to agree or disagree (since they cannot say something is either good or evil), and above all cannot find the answer to the predicament from which, in honesty, they cannot admit exists without contradiction.
This is our legacy - we wish our children better lives than ourselves, for we have made mistakes as did our fathers and their fathers before them. But you must choose for yourself what answer you wish your children to know - they will believe what you tell them, but will you tell them that technology and scientific advancement will greatly enhance your life to perfectibility, or that the only answer is in Christ. Will you accept the inheritance of Christ, or the inheritance of this world in it’s fallen state?
Jared Williams
Where does evil and the bad come from if man is essentially good and perfectible? The general humanist answer is that evil comes from the culture (in particularly Christian culture) but the problem then becomes why culture is evil. What is culture? Is it not made up by and of humans? So if man makes up his culture and his culture makes man evil, do we not just then make ourselves evil? It is circular reasoning. Culture cannot answer where evil comes from in a humanist viewpoint.
But to even look for evil in a humanist worldview is a moot point in itself, for the humanist has no foundations to call one thing evil or another good. Why? A moral standard to determine what is good and what is evil demands a transcendent standard setter. Without a ‘standard setter’ (one who determines what is good and what is evil), what is good and evil could not be determined outside of preferences and a preference has no moral value to itself what-so-ever.
But this is exactly what many humanists claim: why could we not slowly, through social contracts, determine what is right and wrong for us based upon group preferences? Well, what I hear you saying then is that one tribe befriends his neighbors and the other tribe eats his neighbor - and both tribes are driven by preference; what feels right. But the humanist has no foundation of morality and as a consequence cannot say that one is bad or the other is good.
But there is misery in this world none-the-less, and though they by all rights cannot call it evil, they do call it bad. What is their hope? They must have hope if they believe man is essentially perfectible. What is their mode of perfection? For most, it is scientific advancement - technology.
The interesting thing with technology though is that technology is morally neutral. Dynamite is no more evil and no more good than a prosthetic is. Technology can do great good just as well as it can do great evil, the only difference is the man behind the use of the technology. In all those movies you always hear “If this ever gets into the wrong hands....” - we inherently know this. Technological advancement may make things easier for us, but it will not make us better people any more than it will make us worse. Just think of this - in the hands of a good man, a gun can save millions (cops): in the hands of an evil man, a gun can kill millions (robbers). This may be over-simplified to a great extent, but the principle still stands, technology is only as good as the man using it just as technology will be as evil as the man using it is.
We wish to be good, that cannot ever be doubted. The majority of mankind does not go out his door and say, I wish to do something truly evil today. Nor does the common man, if honest, believe that he is perfectible. Evil is easy, that which is good is not always so appetizing, indeed many times good is hard because evil is so enticing. Truly we want to be good people, but we are truly fallen. Humanism does not have the ability to agree or disagree (since they cannot say something is either good or evil), and above all cannot find the answer to the predicament from which, in honesty, they cannot admit exists without contradiction.
This is our legacy - we wish our children better lives than ourselves, for we have made mistakes as did our fathers and their fathers before them. But you must choose for yourself what answer you wish your children to know - they will believe what you tell them, but will you tell them that technology and scientific advancement will greatly enhance your life to perfectibility, or that the only answer is in Christ. Will you accept the inheritance of Christ, or the inheritance of this world in it’s fallen state?
Jared Williams
