Humanism's Hypocrisy
Joe R. Price

Everybody lives by some standard of right and wrong. Jesus said His word is the truth that saves us, the authority to which we are accountable, and the standard by which we will be judged in the last day (Jno. 8:31-32; 12:48-50). The Scriptures of Jesus Christ that tell us what is good and what is sin against God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Jno. 3:4). When we agree with the teachings of Christ’s apostles, we uphold a divine standard, not a human one (Gal. 1:6-10).

Even those who deny the existence of God define themselves by a set of ethics. They perceive these ethics to be human in origin and accepted by the human race as necessary for the good of humanity. For instance, according to The American Humanist Association (AHA), “HUMANISM is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity” (“Good Without A God,” pamphlet, AHA).

Humanists religiously promote a set of ethics, including “strong support of separation of religion from government, preservation and restoration of the environment, protection of civil rights and liberties, and promotion of personal choice regarding introduction of life (i.e., abortion, jrp), family structure (i.e., same-sex marriage, etc., jrp), and death with dignity (i.e., euthanasia, jrp) ... we are a community that encourages tolerance and nurtures diversity – we will not tolerate legally imposed sectarian judgements (sic), human rights violations, or discrimination in any form.” (Ibid, emphasis theirs)

The hypocrisy of humanism is glaringly evident in this statement.

First, if there is no God, then who decides what is for the “greater good of humanity”? The AHA? Indeed, who decides what is morally good at all? Well, the humanist says, “Human beings decide for themselves what is moral and good, without a god.” Yet, when human beings “legally” decide that it is good to oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia, the humanists “will not tolerate” it. Why not? Because they intend to establish their own version of “good” – a society devoid of divine morality. They will decide for everyone else what is good. By attempting to do so, they defy their own “logic” and “ethics.”

Therefore, one problem with the humanist philosophy is its attempt to establish a set of ethical principles (to define what is morally “good”) by using no standard greater than mankind’s own, self-defined goodness. Something is good to the humanist because they conclude it is good, not because there is an objective standard by which to test and determine (or discredit) whether it is morally good. Their inconsistency is their unwillingness to allow others to choose a different standard of goodness, namely, one that is built upon faith in God. They are intolerant of those who accept and agree to a God-given standard of moral goodness, while they plead for the right to choose a standard of moral goodness.

Another hypocrisy of humanism is seen in its plea for tolerance. While claiming to be tolerant, they are extremely intolerant of those who disagree with them. Their political objective is to obstruct and overthrow the will of the majority for the sake of their minority opinions. For example, humanists say every mention of God must be expunged from government-funded facilities, agencies and activities. They are not tolerant of religious freedom to exercise one’s faith without government interference. They demand the government interfere with the free expression of faith. Freedom “of” religion is interpreted by them to mean freedom “from” religion. They insist on freedom to choose no religion, yet demand others must choose no religion, too.

The Bible says, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). We uphold the freedom of religious choice, while presenting the rational and reasoned evidence for the existence of God. His will should be chosen and preferred over the will of humans (Rom. 1:18-21; Col. 2:8-10; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Christians are taught, “if it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). When doing so, we will “obey God rather than men,” which puts us in conflict with the humanist (Acts 5:29). If humanists are truly committed to tolerance, they should tolerant Christians who conclude it is good and life-fulfilling to follow the Bible. Since they believe they can live “good without god,” they should not object to those who conclude we can be “good with God.” But, they are not, because darkness loves the darkness because it hides their sins from view (Jno. 3:19-21). Expose humanism to the light of truth and its sins against humanity become clear. It tolerates devaluing human life, and even murder in the name of tolerance (abortion and euthanasia). It cries out in rebellious defiance of what is good (Eph. 5:6-14).

The goal of humanism is the eradication of God from society – not the co-existence of believers and non-believers within a society. The AHA claims this goal by identifying itself as “An organization of people working for the advancement of humanism and humanistic change” (Ibid). Humanism denies God and believes man can save himself from the suffering and injustices people inflict on others. We believe Jesus Christ delivers us from sin, the source of suffering, pain and death (Rom. 5:6-11). We love each other, our neighbor as ourselves, because God first loved us (1 Jno. 3:7-11).