Humanists such as Paul Kurtz try to sound as though a moral standard can be easily established in the absence of theism, but the attempt fails swiftly. We examined last week one of the heroines he selected as a model of responsible and ethical behavior, Margaret Sanger–only to find that of her it could truly be said that “anything goes” (Dallas Morning News, October 28th, p. 1G).
Nevertheless Kurtz argues (we suppose with a straight face) that: “We ought to tell the truth, keep promises, be honest, kind, dependable and compassionate; we ought to be just and tolerant and, whenever possible, negotiate our differences peacefully” (3G). He later adds, “A morally developed person understands that he ought not to lie…” (3G). Does Mr. Kurtz really mean that?
He certainly has heard of Joseph Fletcher, who was named “Humanist of the Year,” along with Mary Calderone, in 1974. Fletcher popularized “situation ethics” in two books he wrote back in the ’60’s. Fletcher attempts to show that it is permissible to lie if the circumstances call for it–to save someone’s life, for example. Now which is it: ought a man to lie, or oughtn’t he? Humanist Fletcher says, “Yes”; Humanist Kurtz says, “No.”
The Problem of ArbitrarinessOn what intelligent basis, therefore, can men decide what constitutes ethical behavior? Shall we conclude that we “ought” to tell the truth unless–? Yes, we ought to be honest unless a) it hurts someone else, b) it hurts us, c) it becomes inconvenient, d) I just don’t feel like telling the truth, e) all of these. Although choice d is just a tad facetious, the doorway to arbitrariness is already open when a or b is selected. Who defines what will hurt someone else or when Self is justified in lying to stave off dire consequences. After all, isn’t that why most people lie in the first place–to keep from getting into trouble?
“Johnny, did you break the vase?” The little tyke is no dummy. If he admits the truth, he knows a hearty spanking will grace his posterior. “No, I don’t know anything about it.” Or, if he’s Bart (or O.J.) Simpson, he might say, “I didn’t do it; nobody saw me do it; you can’t prove anything.” A parent might reason with a child, “It is better for you to tell the truth,” but all he’s thinking about is that it will definitely be painful to tell the truth. He doesn’t want to experience pain; so he lies.
Exactly how are adults any different? They don’t want to face the consequences of their actions, either. Most people don’t tell lies for capriciousness’ sake; they do it to cover their mistakes or other wrongs. By humanist philosophy no one can actually be accused of wrongdoing–because each person has his own standards. On the basis of non-biblical morality, mankind will never arrive at a system of law, justice, or socially acceptable behavior. Whenever we all do that which is right in our own eyes (that is, we are autonomous beings, a plank of Humanism), chaos results.
In David A. Noebel’s book, Understanding the Times , the author quotes Paul Kurtz as admitting: “I can find no ultimate basis for ‘ought'” (197). Despite everything else he says, he has given up his case. He finds no basis for “ought”; the theist does. The Christian knows that behind every “ought” stands a moral principle of God. Mankind “ought” to behave a certain way because God has decreed it. Morality emanates from His character. He is truth; man ought to speak the truth. When moral behavior is based on the Word of God, morality is objective; it originates outside of and from above man. But when man vainly attempts to eliminate God, he has no objective place to go to for acceptable behavior. All sources will be subjective; this morality arises within mankind. And since one man figures he’s as good as another, any one person’s systems of ethics is just as valid and right as any other person’s.
As brother Thomas B. Warren pointed out in The Warren-Flew Debate, his opponent knew that what Hitler did was wrong, but he could not explain what law the Germans violated. They did not transgress German law; they did transgress a higher law–God’s law. Kurtz and other humanists are stuck with an evershifting, always negotiable moral code–one that is built upon sand.
Attacking TheismAs is typical of humanists, they attack deeds performed by those claiming to be Christians but who have acted contrary to what the Bible teaches. Kurtz writes: “So many infamous deeds have been perpetrated in the name of God–the Crusades, the Inquisition, religious inspired terrorism in Palestine, the carnage going on among three religious ethnicities in Yugoslavia–that it is difficult to blithely maintain that belief in God guarantees morality. It is thus the height of intolerance to insist that only those who accept religious dogma are moral, and that those who do not are wicked” (1G, 3G).
At least he left out the crazed religious nut who says, “God told me when I woke up this morning to kill Yitzhak Rabin.” Paul Kurtz ought to know that what somebody does in the name of religion does not mean that religion authorized it to be done. The Crusades, for example, came as a result of obeying no New Testament teaching of either Jesus or the apostles. Name the verse or passage that authorizes Christians to fight with literal weapons as though the kingdom were a physical one (John18:36).
The Spanish Inquisition was a terrible tragedy that no one attempts to justify. What verse of Scripture would support the spreading of the gospel in this fashion? What passage grants authority to kill heretics? None. Dr. James Kennedy, in What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, quotes Herbert Lockyer as setting the figure at 30,000 for the total number killed throughout Europe during the Inquisition. These died in opposition to New Testament doctrine. In fact, authorities banned the Bible during this time (216).
But how did Hitler, who killed millions (instead of mere thousands), violate Humanist philosophy? He was drawing upon the philosophy of Nietzsche, the man who originally coined the phrase “God is dead” (212). Does it not seem as though Hitler concluded that if God was dead, all things were permitted? At least Nietzsche wasn’t given a “Humanist of the Year” Award–yet. Does Kurtz want to challenge Nietzche’s philosophy? Surely, he would disassociate himself from Hitler, but how can he legitimately do so? Why are they wrong; on what basis would Kurtz be correct in denouncing them? And even if he does, would other humanists join in to condemn Nietzsche? [No, they would not.]
According to Kurtz, humanists “affirm that life is worthwhile and that it can be a source of bountiful joy” (3G). Has the man never taken a philosophy or literature course at the graduate level? Has he never studied Nietzche, Camus, and other modern, humanist writers who champion the meaninglessness of life and vaunt suicide? Come, come, Mr. Kurtz. And with a name like his, he should read Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The bottom line is that without God, everything is not optimistic and rosy. There is no rationality and no rationale for living; all is despair. How can meaningful life be defined in an accidental universe, devoid of any design or purpose? And why should people be moral when an account of their actions will never be required?