146 comments

1. Why do you call secular humanism (a naturalistic worldview) a religion?

   • This was just addressed at length in another response. Just scroll and it’s there

2. In the search for the source documents of Secular humanism I have found: http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

   I couldn’t find support for the idea that humanism can’t coexist with other religions but instead the following: “Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.”

   • I have acres of sources. I will be doing another article with a pile of sources… very credible sources. I should be up on the site in a day or two.

3. What I am curious about David is whether you see all non believers in religion as Secular Humanist Atheists or is this just a subset of that larger cohort?

   • Peter, I was an agnostic for 25 years. I wavered in and out of my belief in SH, in terms of valence. When I was doing my undergrad sciences I was a much stronger SH believer… Darned near an SH preacher. Kinda like some say their faith feels stronger after church.

     During my brief stint as a cop, I saw true faith, and fake faith, and plenty of real evil. Later, the Air Force stamped “No Rel Pref” on my dog tags. I wasn’t sure what I believed. I wasn’t solid agnostic, atheist, or religious.

     Yep, pretty sure your answer is no, you are what you are. By definition a Secular Humanist is an Atheist. Plenty of other non believers out there.

     • By definition a Secular Humanist is an Atheist.

       David, with all due respect, that’s simply not true. This is the “cartoon reality” you create which I spoke of to Mike. A believer can be a secularist, and many, many are. I have chatted with numerous Christians who are quite adamant that they want religion out of government. Most of your Founding Fathers were religious men, but demanded religion stay out of government. That, David, is the definition of secularism, and you know fully well it is.

       I must make a note here that I’m unsure whether you are lying deliberately, or are simply confused. The test, of course, will come in the future when you either adjust your words/belief system to reflect reality (reflect the truth), or repeat what I will call here, for now, the “misunderstanding.” If you repeat this misunderstanding then you will consciously know you’re lying, so we’ll just have to wait and see how you respond in the future.

       Now, Humanism is simply the acknowledgement that is it us, and us alone, humans, who must solve the problems which face us, free of ancient superstitions and outdated coded laws. One can be religious and a humanist as well. Most Eastern religions would also consider themselves Humanist. They do not subscribe to cosmic intervention, believing instead change comes from within and through the hands of man, and man alone.

     • John,
       For perspective, you may want to look at my response to Peter regarding a brief history of SH religion.

     • Are you denying that your Founding Fathers were Secularists?

     • Didn’t we already have this discussion? They were, predominantly, devout Christians. 2-deists, 2-universalists, the rest all Christians signing the Declaration of Independence.

     • Predominately Christians, yes. So, does this not falsify your stated definition of secular humanism? I would hazard to guess the vast majority of Christians are, in fact, Secularists, like your founding fathers were.

     • And David, you never replied to my comment debunking ID.

       Are you prepared to admit it’s nonsense, as demonstrated?

       It’s “predictions” have all been falsified.

     • John, my being overwhelmed by the volume of response doesn’t win you anything. We’ve pushed well passed 100 responses.

     • Well done! This post has inspired some spirited discussions. That’s a good thing.

       My comment was in response to you claiming ID makes predictions. I showed you those prediction had been falsified. You say you once studied science, so you should know what happens to hypothesis which have been falsified. So, are you willing to concede that ID has been falsified and should not, under any circumstances, be considered science, rather Creationism.

     • Repost the missed question to this thread. Save me from rifling through the pile.

     • It’s the one with the video. You can’t miss it.

4. David, you’ve created binary model that is complete… on itself. It is a garrison model built to defend against any and all approaches. There is no way in, so to speak, no means for others to get you to consider alternatives, consider contrary evidence. Your model takes care of it all. There is nothing anyone can say or show or witness, nothing that can be gathered from reality and shown to you that will offer you reason to reevaluate the accuracy, the truth value, your model. Such a model depends entirely on itself for justification and can be reinforced by any and all exterior evidence. That’s a clue about its actual truth value… it describes your beliefs – beliefs that may or may not be true.

   So the problem I’m pointing out isn’t about this post’s nonsensical content; John’s done a good job of that. The problem I’m pointing out is that you have no means to figure out whether any, all, or even some of your claims are in fact true. And that’s a problem of method. There is no connection you will allow between this explanatory model you have created and defended from the reality independent of you that you think, you assert, you insist, you assure everyone it accurately describes. You have allowed no means to know; all you have is what you started with: your belief. And, as John has said again (I just had to add that) it’s nonsense. You just don’t know, cannot differentiate that, it’s nonsense and you’ve confused your not knowing with a false certainty that your belief is sufficient to describe reality.

   It’s not. It’s sufficient only to describe your faith-based beliefs about reality. And in this case, they are not synonyms but antonyms.

   • Tildeb,

     I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

     The academic arguments we have are interesting, but are really of no practical use unless we can see evidence with our own eyes.

     Tonight I met with one of our ministry groups. Half were too new to have worked the 6-month, Christ-centered program. The other half had completed the program and were there learning leadership, sharing and serving. To a man, the “completed” group testifies that God saved them from a variety of deadly, debilitating disorders. God’s Word gave them the tools to see Him, and He loved them, he taught them wisdom, and He gave them victory.

     Many that I meet deny God and refuse His love and His help.

     Many accept it, and I watch their lives being healed with my own eyes. I hear it in there testimony. It’s tangible in their hands as they go from broken and suffering to strengthened by God and serving. Their families get back moms and dads, sons and daughters, wives and husbands… All who they thought were ruined and bound to die in their habits, hurts or hangups.

     When you see that much evidence right in front of your face, it’s impossible to not believe.

     God’s blessings on you, and thanks for caring enough to respond. Something inspired you to respond… Wonder if you can see what.

     • Knowing up front that having no way to determine if your attributions (about some interactive, creative, causal agency) are true has no practical value? Are you serious? Apparently so.

       No wonder you confuse your belief with reality; you assume the two are equivalent and then say that to presume otherwise – believed by you to be some vague academic argument – has no practical value!

       The practical value is stop fooling yourself. That’s why you don’t recognize your post as full of nonsense; you’ve equated your beliefs about atheists, your beliefs about secularists, your beliefs about humanists, to be true in fact. They’re not. They are lies. Obviously, whether your beliefs are true is of no practical value to you, which is why you can be so wrong and simply not care that others are telling you, are showing you, are explaining to you, that you are.

       You lay out a fair bit of assertion to justify your beliefs as if they were therefore true in fact and of practical value and simply don’t care if the assertions are not the case. Because you believe your assertions are correct, you cannot be shown to be wrong. The trifecta of reason, evidence, and establishing causal links between claims about reality and reality itself offer you no practical value!

       That’s why you can believe in nonsense. That’s why you can deny whatever you want, reformulate reality into whatever shape you want to believe is true but note; what you’ve done in reality is turn your belief into your god and allowed it stand supreme. The only cost to doing so is having access to what’s true. But what’s the worry? What’s true is of no practical value to you.

       Again, you just don’t see this is what you’re doing because your brain is impaired on this religious drug and so you’ve turned reality is whatever it is you want to believe it to be.

       Jesus weeps.

     • You use my name, so apparently your comments are directed at me… Then you roll out what looks like a philosophy lesson? Maybe?

       I can only guess that you get heartburn from how I look at evidence. Let’s shoot at that.

       Reproducible science – evidential, observable scientific method.

       Un-Reproducible science – a tightly reigned, highly and frequently reviewed historical method. This gets scientists in more trouble!

       Law – historical method, Socratic method, discipline studies as is called for.

       Faith – Scripture, historical method, evidential observation, experience

       In plain English, what’s wrong with this?

     • David, your understanding of what constitutes ‘evidence’ is wrong. You’re not alone; many, many people really don’t grasp the central concept.

       Simply put, I dance. It rains. I claim my dancing causes the rain. I have made a causal claim and I’m using rain as evidence for it.

       Do you see the problem?

       In order for something to be considered ‘evidence’ let’s start at the beginning, the OED definition:

       “The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

       The key notion here is ‘indicating’. How do we indicate this effect – rain being presented as if evidence – belongs to that cause – my dancing? In other words, by definition, evidence to be evidence has to demonstrate a connection between the thing itself (what is being presented as evidence – rain) and the proposition (the hypothesis, the claim, the causal link, my dancing). That’s what we’re looking for, THE LINK between what you say is evidence and the cause for it/them.

       So David, you presents quotes and some personal experiences. Great. Good start. But none of this is evidence. It’s not evidence because you have not LINKED these things, these effects you’ve gathered, to the cause you say is real and true and valid. They may be but without that direct link available for anyone to study, to falsify, to verify, to test, to validate, all you have done is present assertions and accusations and assumptions as if they were stand-alone pieces of evidence. They’re not. Rain is not evidence for the awesome power of my dancing to cause it.

       And this is when we run smack up against the METHOD being used by you to select data, to select particular bits and pieces and flotsam and jetsam that APPEARS to support this claim (rain, puddles, creeks, rivers, oceans, clouds, fog) but contain no means to LINK these to the proposed cause (my dancing). That’s a methodological problem because it supports confirmation bias (what about the time between dancing and rain, the days of sunshine in spite of dancing, the days of drought in spite of dancing?) and has no means to be tested or verified (because I know my dancing causes the rain because I BELIEVE my dancing causes the rain). There is no means available when you justify the truth and validity of your claims using only belief in assumption, belief in assertion, belief in accusations to be sufficient. In none of these cases you’ve presented (as if ‘evidence’ – rain) is there any attempt to link them to your claims (I dance and it rains BECAUSE my dancing causes the rain and I believe this to be true, believe it to be valid and I don;t care if anyone points out anything else). That’s why, David, you can post such nonsense and really believe it to be true. You don’t need the link because including that would change the entire method – faith-based belief and NOT reality – you must utilize to justify your claims. If you don’t then all of a sudden John’s points rear up as valid and you have no response to them other than waving them away.

5. David: “Majority SH/A tribes, such as college campuses, are completely intolerant of Christians. They ostracize, berate, and engineer the firing of Christians. If a Christian comes out of the closet, academia will remove them so they don’t spread any non-SH ideology. This happens in state and local government offices, media outlets, and several other trades/tribes.”

   This is very serious because real Secular humanists shouldn’t be so intolerant so they make themselves guilty of these things. I think real Secular humanists should help expose these fraudulent so-called Secular humanists.

   • Agreed? Have you seen the documentary film Expelled by Ben Stein? It’s exactly as I described.

     • Hi David

       Perhaps you should read this Scientific American article about Steins film. It’ll give the true story.

       http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know/

       Now, your point here is, as I’ve said earlier, nonsense. There are no laws or regulations excluding Christians from academic institutions. None, and there never will be. I can, however, show you seven states in the US where atheists are not allowed, by law, to hold public office.

       Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
       No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

       Maryland, Article 37:
       That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

       Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
       No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

       North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
       The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

       South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
       No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

       Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
       No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

       Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
       No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

       So, who is really being discriminated against?

       Please, let’s keep it within the realm of what is “real.”

     • Rennie has authored the following:

       Rennie, John (July 2002). “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense”. Scientific American 287 (1).

       Rennie, John (November 30, 2009). “Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense”. Scientific American.

       He is obviously overwhelmingly biased and has -0- credibility outside the professors cocktail party.

       His article does little to nothing to refute Stein’s thesis. Instead, he tries to attack small, but only slightly significant minor details.

       1) The Darwin editing is predominantly entire sentences, so the general context is preserved. I’ve worked in media. You often have to cut for time, particularly when you go from a book-form quote to video screen. Unabridged, Darwin’s quote is milder but the sentiment is still there. Also, the full text is not difficult to find should the viewer want a fuller understanding. It’s a fair critique, but it’s of little gravity.

       2) The audience was staged for a debate. Nothing about the content of the debate, just the audience presence wasn’t credible.

       3) Scientists didn’t realize the context of the movie they were being interviewed for… Nothing about the content of what they said, just that they didn’t know how the movie would be packaged.

       4) The researcher who lost his job was a contractor, not a payroll employee – Rennie doesn’t know what it takes to move into a U.S. Federal job.. Many go through a year or two of contract work before getting the federal position.

       5) Just denying that SH science doesn’t reject intelligent design is not evidentiary.

       6) There are evolutionary biologists who are, an others who are not, religious… Yep, how is that an argument? Those who are are still being run off when they come out of the closet,

       And yes, there are antiquated laws on the books that are unenforceable, but not yet taken off the books. That’s not an argument.

       Sorry John, good try and thanks for the effort, but your refutation was a nothing burger.

     • “On the books”… Organised discrimination at the state level. Don’t try and diminish it for what it is, David.

       And again, there is no law or regulation forbidding Christians in institutes of higher learning, nor will there ever be. That is about as ludicrous as saying stamp collectors are being “run off” campuses.

       If ID is science, then please name a prediction it makes which can be tested.

       Stein’s work was a farce. It seems the only way to create the “persecution” narrative Christians desire is to lie.

     • I really wouldn’t use words like “lie”… people who have different beliefs are not liars, they just believe differently. And honestly, are you from the US? There is a cottage industry of writing books that make fun of the antiquated laws on the books – It’s just not credible to call unenforceable laws that legally bind no one “organized discrimination”… That is specious. ID is abundantly clear, plenty of scientists have come out of the closet, and the evidence is plain as your left hand.. 5 fingers, just like your right one. Not very random, and evidence of intelligent design. Evolution is still a theory, so you can’t use that without going to religious belief. ID has profoundly more cosmological and teleological grounds than the “science” of origins.

       By the way, a friendly critique, and not personal. When someone uses the word “again” again and again, it loses it power. If someone fails to make an argument, repeating it saying “again” again and again makes them look intellectually lazy, and I know you value your credibility.

       Finally, “… no law or regulation forbidding Christians in institutes of higher learning, nor will there ever be.” sounds more like a prophecy than a solid argument. I recall there were no civil rights laws on the books until there were, and discrimination still existed.

       Thanks for the comment, and for your continued civility.

     • David, The Wedge Document is the smoking gun that demonstrates that “Intelligent Design” is “Creationism” in a thin disguise. It’s release embarrassed Creationists badly because they have always been at pains to profess that ID is not religious, and especially not Christian.

       Shall I repeat a part from the document?

       “and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions

       So, who’s lying?

       Now, to repeat 🙂 if you think “ID” (Creationism) is science, then please name a prediction it makes.

     • John, ID and Creationism are two related, but distinctly different concepts.

       This is clearly not a lie: “and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” Correcting the record is not a lie. The Wedge Document ignored the extremist hyperventilation of the far left (think LGBT hysteria in a lab coat), until they finally decided it wouldn’t die until it was addressed – this history is well-documented in the link I posted earlier.

     • And speaking of lying, have you ever heard of The Wedge Document, David? It’s the Discovery Institutes secret strategy which was never meant to be seen in public. Here’s an extract:

       The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. … Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science.
       […]
       Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. … Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

       And this their stated “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” which says:

       The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. … [The theory of intelligent design (ID)] promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

       So, who’s doing the lying here?

     • And here is the refutation, point for point, making the “Wedge Document” criticism appear to be what it is: Organized rebuttal of the extremist anti-Judeo Christian Secular Humanist organized attempt to drive God off the face of life in the developed world.

       Here’s a great, informative link.

       http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how001066.html

     • ID = Creationsim… The Wedge Document proves that.

       Again, if you think ID (Christian Creationism) is science, then name a prediction it makes.

     • ID is not creationism. You are wrong.

       (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
       (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
       (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
       (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

     • ID is Creationism.

       Junk DNA? The amoeba proteus: a gelatinous, microscopic, single-celled blob of primitive organics boasts a staggering 670 billion base pairs in its genome, whereas a 5 trillion-celled human being has only 2.9 billion base pairs.

       Irreducible complexity is a rehash of Paley’s Watchmaker argument. It’s not science.

     • And David, posting an article written by the very institution who has been exposed for their lies is not terribly convincing.

       Just saying 😉

     • That was the first in a long list. Shall I increase the sample-size or do you just want to handle the substance?

     • Let me guess, all written by Creationists 🙂

     • A Christian Minister who was committed to seeing science and religion as compatible lent me a copy of Francis Collins book ‘The Language of God’. At the outset Collins, one of the worlds most eminent scientists and a Christian, says that there is way to much evidence to dismiss Evolution. His whole starting point was that Evolution is an accepted truth. What the thrust of his book was to seek to show that this could be consistent with religious belief. Essentially seeing a divine guiding hand behind the apparent random evolution process.

       I saw it as a true attempt at compromise because he was attacked by parties on both sides of the debate.

     • True, he was quite pronounced in his belief system. I’ve always been fond of this photo. It speaks volumes to how the religious should be in regard to new discoveries: fascinated, not terrified

       

     • Most Christians I know are indeed fascinated by ethically advancing science. They are terrified only by immorally pursued science. This juxtaposition is where both sides hatchet-away at each other. SH scientists impose fabricated ethical whims while they kill unborn children and harvest their body parts… Selling those parts over a glass of wine on a salad.

       The comportment of SH religious indoctrination has caused Christians to abandon public schools for homeschooling, when getting involved in school boards and state legislatures and fighting the battle would serve a greater good. It should be mentioned that the homeschoolers fears are very well founded… If they can’t get involved in school boards, and such, they very rightly should take their kids out of the SH temples.

     • David, I’m sorry, but you just make yourself look silly by saying “Secular Humanist Religion.”

       Are you denying your Founding Fathers were all Secularists? Given that they were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, one may also say they were Humanists. Many, though, were also religious men, weren’t they?

       Doesn’t then the functional history of your own countries founding contradict this diabolical cartoon you’re trying to fabricate, David?

     • Check out my post How Did We Get So Morally Divided. This is addressed there.

       And John, I’m glad you see the behavior of SH’s as cartoonish. I agree. They really should come onboard wish cooperation.

     • 🙂 Careful, your projecting there, David.

     • I have a great deal of respect for Francis Collins.

     • Why? I’m curious.

     • There’s a post on my main page 44 Former Atheists, that will give you insight.

     • I should have clarified: why do you have respect for Francis Collins?

     • John, Scientific American seems to be government controlled: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/whats-behind-birthers-obama-belief-09-08-10/

     • Good sourcing!

     • Thanks, David! It is a very simple and effective test of honesty to search for articles with the mack daddy at a site that claims to be scientific.

     • I’m sorry, Magnus, but your comment makes no sense at all.

       Are you trying to say SciAm is a government publication? What on earth would make you think that? The article you linked to concerns a study by Harvard’s Mahzarin Banaji and San Diego State’s Thierry Devos on implicit social cognition.

     • Yes, it is obviously guided by political correctness rather than truth.

     • You’re going to have to explain yourself, Magnus. I have no idea what you’re trying to hit at.

     • John, the issue is the illegal presidency of Obama.

     • I’ll just assume you’re drunk and ignore you.

     • Ha, ha, ha! That would be very unwise, John, but, I am afraid, quite telling. Don’t you know anything about the biggest political fraud in US history?

     • Hi John, 122 responses, 31 of which are yours. This is a discipleship piece aimed toward Christians to aid in evangelism, not a treatise on all things John Zande wants to argue about. Feel free to chat with others, but I really have to move on. Thanks for participating. You may want to keep an eye out for a future post regarding, specifically, the Religion of Secular Humanism, an Apologetic Study.

     • David, you made some pretty big claims. Are you conceding that you can not defend them?

     • We covered this John. If you can’t get your point across in 32 postings, I don’t have the time to argue all things John Zande. I concede nothing. Keep your powder dry… There will be another chance soon.

     • The thread ranged from first debunking your cartoon definition of secular humanism… Or are you suggesting your founding fathers weren’t “secularists”?

       That would be quite a claim, David. So, your definition is wrong, and you know it is. It would also be quite a claim to suggest most Christians are, in fact, secularists. Most I’ve spoken to are indeed secularists.

       Will you admit your definition was wrong?

       The topic then drifted onto ID… and each of your claims was debunked. Irreducible complexity has been, as I showed you, flatly falsified. You said there would be no junk DNA. I demonstrated that that claim is easily falsified. Now, you say you have a science history, so you know what happens to hypotheses that have been falsified. They are discarded as trash.

       Are you, David, going to admit ID (Creationism) has been falsified?

       And again, David, this is your post. We are merely addressing the points raised here by you. If you can’t defend those points, then you have a problem with reality. Not me.

     • Ooops,

       “It would also be quite a claim to suggest most Christians are *not*, in fact, secularists”

     • No, I have not. Thanks for the tip!

6. Wally, did you just do what I think you did?
   “@John Z. Watch closely, because the earth is about to tilt off of it’s axis in that I am about to agree with you.
   I don’t know your background Magnus, but you are shading something that simply can’t be shaded. ”
   —
   did you actually care enough about the truth of the matter to disagree with a brother in Christ by agreeing with an atheist? seems like a familiar position. in fact, it’s exactly what I did awhile back on another blog that earned me your unending contempt and scorn. juts thought you might appreciate the irony and be able to reconsider your treatment of me. enjoy the day. -mike

7. In response, I think we’ve seen great evidence of intolerance between what might be described as deity-based religions, as opposed to just secular humanists. Intolerance is in evidence among all disciplines of belief, as far as I can see. This polarization is even more troubling when the various groups employ bullying or even violence in an attempt to sway the beliefs of those whom don’t share their particular beliefs. If a primary aim or attribute within each discipline is to “do good;” doesn’t promoting tolerance, above promoting doctrine, become an obligation of we, “the good,” among all disciplines of belief?

   • DeRicki,
     Thanks for contributing to the discussion! I think it’s telling the way two world-views handle rejection. When a Christian shares the gospel with an SH, they’re done. If the SH is unconvicted, that’s that – go about living your witness. Conversely, if an SH shares the beliefs of their atheism and the Christian doesn’t renounce their faith, they are labeled “stupid” or “willfully blind”. Furthermore, the Christian can be dismissed from their job, career blackballed, and ostracized. Who’s the one lacking confidence in their faith?

     • You make good points, but in fairness, not every Christian is as tolerant as you portray. I find no religion completely innocent of intolerance. I find the polarization, and the demonization of “others” by all sides, saddening. I just don’t believe God, however one chooses to define “that which created all things,” wants this for us. If humanity is to survive, we must unilaterally adopt a spirit of tolerance that you espouse. (I’m just sayin’… 🙂

     • I share your caution. You’ll notice that I write about a paragraph of the article that harmonizes with what you just mentioned. Thanks,

     • DeRicki, would a religion completely innocent of intolerance be a good thing? Is it good to tolerate all things?

     • This is a point that I make in the article… All religions are intolerant to some degree. For some, they are so tolerant, they are intolerant of another religion’s intolerance. Universalists deny exclusivity of all religions. Hindus may very well accept Jesus as their Lord and savior, only to include Him among the 330-million named gods they worship.

       Boiling it down, my argument was part of a discipleship piece on evangelizing Secular Humanists. They don’t gather in churches, wear ash on their foreheads, wear yarmulkes or hijabs, etc. SH’s are often well hidden, and evangelizing them takes special consideration. My article was designed for a Christian audience, with the following passage of Scripture in mind:

       16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
       17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,
       18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. http://esv.to/Matt10.16-18

     • David: “For some, they are so tolerant, they are intolerant of another religion’s intolerance.”

       How can they be so tolerant that they are intolerant?

     • That goes to the exclusivity of other religions. Like I mentioned, Universalists deny the exclusivity claims of Christianity, Islam, etc… All roads lead to God, according to them, thus, they don’t tolerate the 1-way claims.

     • David, I do not understand the logic in tolerance becoming intolerance.

     • Magnus, this obviously was not as humorous in digital text as it was in my head when I wrote the article.

       Christianity = tolerant of all others, exclusive access to heaven for Christ followers.

       Universalism = tolerant of all others, denies Christianity’s exclusivity of access to heaven.

       Thus, Universalism’s tolerance of all claims of access to heaven is actually intolerant of claims of exclusive access to heaven.

       Theological humor… Doesn’t always come across as universally as an inappropriately placed belch

     • OK, thanks, David, now I see, but it really isn’t tolerance becoming intolerance because the tolerance in the first circumstance is not the intolerance in the second.

     • Intolerance is the reason people accuse religion of being so often at the source of human suffering in the form of war, torture, terror. For more contemporary examples than atrocities like The Inquisition, intolerance is Westboro Church hate protests and Islamic State car bombs. Intolerance implies not that I simply don’t choose your way of life, but that I will force you to my way. (And everyone seems convinced that their way is the one and only way endorsed by our Creator. A sure fire formula for “righteous” indignation, leading to “righteous” war.) I’ll take compassion and discernment over intolerance every time! 🙂

     • Are you rather compassionate instead of intolerant towards child molestation?

     • I understand the definition of intolerance. I am intolerant towards certain acts, but I strive to be compassionate towards all people. Didn’t Jesus instruct us to love each other as he loved us? He loved the people who condemned and murdered him, yet he was intolerant of their actions. Many Christians seem to spend an inordinate amount of effort on demonizing others whose actions don’t line up with their own. It’s pointless to play the severity of depravity game as you attempt to do with your “child molestation” argument. As a Christian, I’m assuming it’s the actions you hate and not the person. If so, hating an action is pointless in terms of its effect on the world; while applying compassion in our dealings with each other can change the world – actions should, as a result, take care of themselves.

     • I am not sure you do understand, DeRicki. You seem, for example, to confuse “intolerance” with “hate”. Yes, Jesus wanted us to love each other but as you say he was intolerant of certain actions. Do not confuse what many self proclaimed Christians say with the Christian faith. How can actions take care of themselves?

     • Actions that come from a foundation of love can’t avoid being tolerable. When I look at the model of Jesus’ life, I don’t see him saying, “before you partake of these loaves and fishes, I’m going to need for you to pee in this cup.” His focus was on love, while to many of Jesus’ followers focus on judgement and intolerance. Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe that discernment is an important part of faith. I prefer to leave judgment (the place from which intolerance issues) to almighty God.

     • Why would Jesus have asked anyone to pee in a cup?

     • “Peeing in a cup” is a reference to various States I acting legislation requiring welfare recipients to give urine samples for drug tests before they’re able to receive food stamps. Jesus didn’t withhold his love until we could prove we’d committed no no acts of which he disproved. He was intolerant of the sin, but loved the sinner. We tend to condemn each other from the platform of our specific religious dogmas, focusing on demonizing each other instead of taking the path of love as Jesus did. Fanatics and zealots are always driven to commit acts of violence mainly because of intolerance. Intolerance isn’t listed as a fruit of the spirit in the Bible, so what purpose does it serve in the life of a person truly following the path Jesus laid down for us?

     • Are believers saved only through their belief or are actions required? Look up e.g. Jeremiah 17:10 and Ezekiel 18:27. Fanatics and zealots are of many kinds, so I do not think it is true to say that they are always driven to commit acts of violence. I believe we should stick to the truth because it will set us free.

     • What is ironic about your last sentence, is that people quoting the Bible established a “truth” that made it OK to enslave my people. So I’m a little skeptical when men talk to me of their ultimate truths.

       The truth, as I believe, is that actions are not what make me Saved, but God’s grace. The truth is that people have used scripture and man’s tendency towards intolerance to do many things that are obviously not things of a loving God. You can quote scripture at me all day long, but Jesus made us aware of out constant companion in the Holy Spirit that frees me from the machinations of man. I have a personal relationship with my Creator, that resists being twisted. The Bible is a guide, but I believe it’s teachings mean nothing if it doesn’t lead one to love others as Jesus loved us. It can be worshipped as a false idol like any other thing of the world. I’m wary of the Westboro Churches of the world. Their intolerance is just a matter of degree, but not of substance, akin to last week’s Muslim suicide bomber. But, then, that’s just my personal opinion – I feel good about it though, I’ve had long talks with my Father about it. You might disagree with my approach, but that doesn’t prevent us from loving each other as fellow human beings on a path seeking enlight meant and a closer relationship with our Creator. Much love to you, Magnus – and God speed to you on your journey.

     • Thank you, DeRicki, and my best wishes to you. Do not confuse “truth” with truth; the former is usually just an opinion. However, this question about what saves a Christian is not an easy one because the Bible isn’t very clear. See for example Luke 16:16 and 17.

     • The short answer to your question, then, is, “He wouldn’t.” His love was unconditional.

     • And, DeRicki, I play no games in this discussion.

     • Brother, that was a poor choice o words. I apologize and assure you to offend was not my intent.

     • Forgive me, for I belatedly realized that I didn’t give your question a clear answer. Let me try this again…Yes!
       Is it good to love all things? No!

     • You are forgiven, DeRicki, but I think you are misunderstanding “intolerance”.

8. Reblogged this on DJ's Reflections in a Crazed Mirror and commented:
   I found this to be a very thoughtful essay. It’s refreshing to see a rational analysis about religion and tolerance. People will no doubt respond with strong emotion, due to this piece’s sensitive nature. But, that’s what happens when one encourages an open dialog, eh?

9. John,
   The post really isn’t directed at you, unless you’ve taken up Christian evangelism.

   • My evangelical work is concerned only with The Owner of All Infernal Names. He is, after all, the most logically sound, excuse-free explanation for this world… That is, of course, if one wishes to posit a Creator.

     • At least you’re honest.

     • David, feel free to delete my comments above that were in response to Mike. That’s no problem. They look a tad out-of-place floating there without context.

     • Done. Mike’s been deliberately uncivil toward thoughtful commenters and knows he’s not welcome.

10. Hey David,

    1)”Secular Humanism (SH) asserts no possibility of tolerating or even coexisting with any other worldview. For the Atheist SH, all religions, other than theirs, are bad and must be eradicated.” (emphasis omitted)

    Where have you found assertions that by definition, in order to be a Secular Humanist one mustn’t tolerate or coexist with other worldviews? Additionally, what Secular Humanists are asserting that their beliefs mean that other religions must be eradicated?

    2) Here is a page which lists a bunch of different definitions for Secular Humanism. While they do emphasize being good without a deity, there is no mention of eradicating other belief systems merely because they are different. The definitions listed are inconsistent with the portrait of Secular Humanism you have provided here.

    • Hello again SB,

      Although it wasn’t really directed to atheists, you’re certainly invited to read and comment on anything on my blog site… I appreciate your candor, honest consideration of arguments and facts, and civility. Would you mind starting a blog on that? You’ve already got your first follower.

      Toward your concern, I arrived at my place in theology from several sources, and I imagine it will grow and evolve as long as I have a mind. I do have anchor texts from seminary, but none do I agree with completely. Millard Erickson, Ed Hindson, Norm Geisler, Wayne Grudem and Walter Elwell are all in my library. You will find a chorus of voices among Evangelical scholars who agree on the pernicious and intolerant nature of Secular Humanism. I have plenty of dear friends, even my own big sister, who choose to be willfully ignorant about the nature of their faith. I still love them, and we disagree without being disagreeable.

      SHA refuse to consider the possibility of the supernatural because they can’t use science to understand it. Far too many prophecies have been fulfilled, miracles have been witnessed, and near-death experiences have been reported to categorically dismiss Christian faith. Prayer studies have proven prayer has an impact on people who are being prayed for. Way too large a body of evidence exists to not find validity in the supernatural.

      My post here is really directed to inform and strengthen the saints as they approach the most intolerant religion. Although many are lovely people, their ideology requires unique handling and educated preparation.

      Thanks again, SB!

      • David, I think the most intolerant religion is Islam, closely followed by Judaism. Secular humanists can be intolerant, but as Siriusbizinus wrote, it is not, from what I have seen, a necessary part of the belief.

      • There are extremists on all sides… There are also agnostics who self-identify as atheists. Experiences may differ on a personal level. It takes a look at the ideology and application to see.

        I am referring to the comportment of institutional intolerance of the cognizant ideologue and what they teach/communicate to their mentees…

        Islam, even in majority, highly conservative tribes / nations, tolerate non-Muslims who don’t convert, they pay the jizya tax, and go about their business.

        Majority SH/A tribes, such as college campuses, are completely intolerant of Christians. They ostracize, berate, and engineer the firing of Christians. If a Christian comes out of the closet, academia will remove them so they don’t spread any non-SH ideology. This happens in state and local government offices, media outlets, and several other trades/tribes.

        True, Islam has a violent strain, and a small minority will make a show of beheadings and such, but that is not the overwhelming majority.

        I invite you to check out “How Did We Become So Morally Divided?” On the main page of blog postings on my site, where I detail the pernicious creeping SH intolerance and their rise in the U.S.

      • What so-called “moderate Muslims” have done with Islam is making it less repugnant to normal people although these Muslims by doing so can read about their punishment in Koran 2:85. The real Islam is the Islam of the Koran and the Hadiths, the Islam that the so-called extremists strive to apply. Thusly, they are the real Muslims. They know their religion and have of course read also Koran 2:85.

        However, it is worth noting that many Secular humanists, lacking knowledge or being fraudulent, defend Islam. From a real Secular humanist’s standpoint that is crazy.

      • Isn’t it strange? The moderate’s attempts to join the civil world end up masking the true tenets in the Qur’an and Hadith.

      • Yes, it makes you wonder if they really are moderate or just disguised Muslims.

      • Jesus told the disciples…
        16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
        17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,
        18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. http://esv.to/Matt10.16-18

        He was talking about Jews, but there’s no-doubt the principles apply to all.

      • Majority SH/A tribes, such as college campuses, are completely intolerant of Christians. They ostracize, berate, and engineer the firing of Christians. If a Christian comes out of the closet, academia will remove them so they don’t spread any non-SH ideology. This happens in state and local government offices, media outlets, and several other trades/tribes.

        David, this is nonsense. If conflict arises, it occurs because universities (institutions of learning) and religion approach understanding from diametrically opposed positions. Science starts with a question. Religion starts with an answer.

      • I agree there is intolerance in all groups and that it is a mistake to judge a group by there most extreme members. But having said that some groups seem to have more extreme intolerant members than others.

        From my perspective in the current world I would argue that Islam is clearly the most intolerant of any large belief. We should not look at Islam in the west where being in a minority they need to be tolerant of others. Look at what they do when in the majority. People are executed for blasphemy, leaving the religion results in likely death, just being a non Muslim makes one a likely target for death.

        In the current world I don’t see any other group coming even remotely close to that level of intolerance.

        I am not actually sure there is a Secular Humanist ‘religion’, but if there is it is not a patch on Islam in regards to intolerance.

      • Peter,
        Without a doubt, Islam can be very extremely violent. In ultra-conservative Muslim countries, they follow the shariah law remedy for apostates… Death. Go from Iran to Turkey, Muslims don’t legally do anything to apostates. Indonesia, no penalty for apostasy.

      • When judging religions or world-views it is important not to do that based on what followers say or do but what the sources of the beliefs say. Today there is a confusion about what religions are and how they affect the world because people usually only consider the often wide spectrum of present day followers and not the religion itself. This is done up to the highest levels in both politics and academia.

      • In the 1890’s, Thomas Huxley & sycophants set out to “overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity” (The Soul of Science…, Nancy Pearcey, 1994 p.19)

        Thomas’ grandson Julian, British Humanist Assn, advocated developing a “scientific religion”.

        John Dewey, A Common Faith, 1934, “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. Such a faith has always been implicitly the common faith of mankind. It remains to make it explicit and militant” p. 87

        Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education, 1993, “advocates of secular humanism have been quite clear and explicit as to the crucial importance of promoting their philosophy (worldview) in the schools, to counter and undermine religious (Judeo-Christian) values among the next generation. I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: the religion of humanity.” p. 87

        SH is pernicious, insidious, and explicitly hostile to Christianity. The have invaded the leadership of the schools, turned the into temples of SH. They legally require their religion to be crammed down the throats of unsuspecting children, often against the will of the parents. They have banned all books, sign, and symbols of Christianity from campuses. If our future, our children, are not subdued to accept their religion, the careers and futures of those children are crushed.

        The evidence of SH being a religion is apparent, open and hostile. The behavior and words of present day SH’s and their forefathers make clear their intolerant intent. They have right earned the title, the Most Intolerant Religion.

        Thanks for letting me preach 🙂

      • David, are you saying that the undermining of Christendom by secular humanists is at the core of their belief?

      • Yes, definitely. The handful of sources I gave only scratched the surface. This is evidentially a fact highly developed in missiology and apologetics.

      • David, what about the arguments Siriusbizinus provided?

      • There are a ton. You two hammered away at each other for about a day. I only have time to wade in just so deep. I will be happy to answer some if they’re identified and we can focus it down a bit.

        By the way… Way to stand up!

      • No, David, Siriusbizinus and I have not hammered away at each other. Maybe you are thinking of John Zande.

      • Sorry… Tons of responses. Can’t keep track.

      • It’s OK. I have just written to Rebecca Hale, president of American Humanist Association, and asked her about Secular humanism and Christendom. I will get back here with what she said.

      • Who is this ‘they’?

      • Thanks so much. You’ve inspired my next research article. You’ll have plenty to chew on, soon.

11. Secular Humanism (SH) asserts no possibility of tolerating or even coexisting with any other worldview

    David, that’s absolute nonsense. Your country, the US, is a secular humanist country, founded on tolerance. This means you, an evangelical, are not allowed to hunt down and kill Jews, like your founder, Martin Luther, commanded.

    SH’s must disavow any and every possibility that any and every supernatural god exists.

    This is also utter nonsense. Humanists, also known as rationalists, merely assert there is no evidence whatsoever for any gods or the supernatural. No evidence. The Templeton Foundation (a Christian organisation) has spent nearly $2 billion in the last 25 years founding direct research into the supernatural, and they have discovered exactly nothing.

    • Hello John,
      I was hoping you would respond. Thank you for your comments. They illustrate my thesis .
      Be well!

      • Really? How is that?

    • John, I agree with you that Secular humanism can tolerate and coexist with other religions but please quote Martin Luther where he commands the hunting down and killing of Jews.

      If we equate a Secular humanist with an Atheist, we must remember that there are different kind of Atheists, strong Atheists that deny God, and weak Atheists that just do not have a God or do not believe in one.

      • Hi Magnus

        From Luther’s treatise, “On the Jews and Their Lies”

        “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

        First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly ¬ and I myself was unaware of it ¬ will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

        Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

        Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)

        Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

        Fifth, I advise that safe¬conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (…remainder omitted).”

        It goes on and on like this.

      • Moderator’s Note – The dating of the Martin Luther Treatise excerpt herein is 1543

      • Hello, John. I couldn’t find any passage that commanded the killing of Jews. Instead Martin Luther wants to save as many as possible with what he calls “sharp mercy”.

      • Hi Magnus,

        I think we can take it from the treatise that murdering Jews would be perfectly permissible in the eyes of Luther.

        “I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews” is, I think you’ll agree, an open invitation to violence.

        set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn…Their houses also be razed and destroyed is not exactly a gentle command, is it? Luther’s message is simple: terrorise the Jew wherever he or she is found and ruin them.

      • Hello again, John! No, I think it is logically impossible to take from the treatise what you suggest. He wouldn’t speak of saving Jews if he invited to lethal violence against them. His “sharp mercy” is very sharp indeed but it is not what you claimed it to be. Martin Luther’s text is a lot milder than what is found in Talmud, Koran and the Hadiths.

      • Hi Magnus,

        Well, if you think abolishing someone’s safe-conduct (free passage), burning their houses and churches is not issuing a call for violence and extreme intolerance (as this post is about) then so be it.

      • John, of course it is violent to Jewish property and intolerant to their faith but not like you stated a command to hunt down and kill Jews.

      • Hi Magnus,

        True, he stopped short of ordering the murder of Jews, but I think we can both agree he is calling for extreme violence, violence that would, in the hands of ravenous men and women whipped up into a religiously-inspired frenzy, lead to killings and lynchings.

      • Thanks, John. No, Martin Luther is not calling for extreme violence against the Jewish persons, only their property. What do you think Martin Luther should have suggested to the problem with the lying, cursing and riviling Jews?

      • So all Jews, including children, were lying, cursing and riviling, huh?

        I see….

      • Did I say that, John?

      • It would appear so, yes.

      • OK, so I didn’t say it but to you it appears like I did. How come?

      • “What do you think Martin Luther should have suggested to the problem with the lying, cursing and riviling Jews?”

        Are you not siding with Luther here in assigning to all Jews the accusation of being debased in every action?

        Did Luther’s hate-filled, psychotic rant set aside children, women, or, heavens forbid, good male Jews who should not be set upon by his followers?

      • Martin Luther does not say the Jews are debased in every action, and how can his text be a hateful (and psychotic!) rant when he wanted to save them from their own hatred?

      • Hey Magnus

        Been watching this and I am very compelled to pop in and add a thought here.

        @John Z. Watch closely, because the earth is about to tilt off of it’s axis in that I am about to agree with you.

        I don’t know your background Magnus, but you are shading something that simply can’t be shaded.

        I think Martin Luther was one of the great ones. He certainly brought substantial numbers of people back to where they needed to be as Christians, that being salvation through God’s grace and faith in Jesus Christ alone.

        But the simply truth is that, for whatever reason, later in his life Martin Luther developed a quite unreasonable hatred of Jews. Period. And we can’t really gloss that over and ignore it or turn it into something it is not. And this hatred he developed is completely un Biblical and unwarranted.

        Magnus, sometimes we have to simply own the things people we admire do and admit that they have sadly behaved like human beings. I think your tap dancing around this makes your argument look not so smart. Because you can twirl around in 10,000 circles, and Martin Luther said what he said. Sorry to break that news .

        Peace.

      • Hey, Wally, and thanks for chiming in! No, I am not shading anything here and I am no tap dancer. I am only reading what Martin Luther really wrote; that is usually the best way to understand an author. Do you really mean it is an expression of hate to speak about saving Jews? Do not be sorry for breaking any news about Martin Luther, because I can’t see that you have.

      • Agreed, Magnus, he did speak of the Jews being saved, and it was a great burden to him. And it should be to all of us. Sadly, it degenerated to a point where it was no longer Biblical. He meant those things he wrote, just the way he wrote them.

        Shame on him. All I am saying is we don’t do ourselves any favors when we deny that our heroes may have had huge flaws. God never does that in His word, as many Biblical heroes were very flawed people. God owns up to it, and who should we.

        Peace

      • On the contrary, Wally, I think the measures Martin Luther suggested to the Jew problem were quite Biblical. Burning and destroying is a very well-known theme in the Old Testament.

      • Magnus

        The Jew Problem? Really? Wow. Unless you expand on that and change my mind, at this moment the only though in that mind of mine is….”Well, now THERE we have it.”

        Because unless you expand in a different direction that you appear to be headed in, your cheese has apparently slipped off of your cracker.

        What Jew problem, Magnus? There is a SIN problem. With all of us. Me, you, the Jews, The Muslims, The Catholics. and all the Baptists I know and love. Every single one of us. There is no Jewish problem. Good grief.

      • Wally, according to Martin Luther there was a Jew problem, wasn’t it?

      • Well Magnus, according to Martin Luther that is so

        Now, what about you? Do you think there is a Jew Problem? And is their problem any different from the problem any of us have? I think really the focus here is shifting from Martin Luther to Magnus Johansson.

        Here is the question in a nutshell, so you don’t misunderstand. Do the Jews have a problem?(Just as we all do)., or are Jews the problem? Critical difference here, and I think the question deserves and answer.

      • Judaism is a problem for the Jews, especially Talmud.

      • Sorry Magnus, I simply failed to understand what you meant there. You’ll have to expand. Thanks. But I still didn’t really get an answer to my question. You say the Jew problem. Are you saying the Jews have a problem, or that they are the problem?

      • It’s OK, Wally, but I think I have answered your question.

Comments are closed.