Enemies of the Cross – 5

Another area of Humanism which makes it an enemy of the cross is in making value judgments.  This involves deciding what is valuable to the individual, but goes far beyond that.  The values one develops also determine the ethical standards one lives by.  The standard used in this country from its founding until recent years was rooted in the Bible. Humanism does not accept this standard for ethical conduct.  Corliss
Lamont described the Humanist position in his book The Philosophy of Humanism:

Humanism sees no need for resorting to supernatural explanations or sanctions at any point in the ethical process.  A divine First Cause or Sustaining Principle is no more necessary in the sphere of ethics than in that of physics or metaphysics.  Human beings can and do behave decently toward one another without depending on the intercession of a third party known as God (page 231).

Humanist philosophy sees no need for God, thus no need for an ethical system based on God’s Word.

How does the Humanist determine what is right and wrong?  In the Humanist Manifesto under the heading Ethics the following is found: “Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.  Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.  Ethics stems from human interest.” Two important words in the above quote is “autonomous” which means self-ruled, and “situational” meaning the situation determines whether or not an action is right or wrong. What this means is described by Lamont: “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves” (page 232).  Ever heard or read someone suggesting that nothing is black or white, it is all grey?  Here is where it comes from, Humanist philosophy.  Read the statement by Lamont again and think about the implications.

What makes an act good or bad?  Lamont answers, “Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by its consequences for the individual and society…Humanist ethics draws its guiding principles from human experience and tests them in human experience” (page 232).  Since nothing is right or wrong in and of its self, people need to act, then evaluate the consequences for self and society before making an ethical judgment.  This also makes it impossible to hold everyone to the same standard.  Remember, ethics is “autonomous and situational,” different for each one of us.  Those who believe and practice Humanist ethics can commit acts which many find appalling, and see no problem at all.

The effect this philosophy of values has on the Christian faith must not be overlooked.  If accepted by the masses, where will the conviction for sin be?  There will be none. For in their thinking there is no standard of right and wrong to violate thus there is no sinful conduct.

—Denny