Among the more interesting ideologies of modern times is the notion of “secular humanism”. Adherents of this world-view propose that people ought to work toward the well-being of humanity on a general level, and support the rights and dignity of individual persons on the particular level. Secular humanists often see themselves as promoters of the common good and have advanced a certain public admiration for musical stars who perform for charity and celebrities that rally for causes ranging from poverty relief to environmental movements. Over all, these self-styled lovers of humanity do accomplish a considerable amount of charitable works that are often quite praise worthy. On the surface, this ideology sounds quite a bit like the social doctrine of the Catholic Church; however, the “secular” aspect of “secular humanism” makes a world of difference. From the “secular” perspective, such works of charity are performed for reasons that seem somewhat ambiguous. If you were to inquire why adherents of secular humanism are supporting such works the answers might sound something like this:
“Hey man, these people have suffered and I feel for them.”
“It’s good to take care of people. Someday I might need help.”
“It makes me feel better to know I’ve done some good in the world.”
One may notice that the motivations supporting these actions seem either to be based on some element of emotional satisfaction, or they appeal to some self-evident notion of the goodness of the acts themselves.
The issue of motivation separates the “secular humanist” from the “Christian humanist” on one level. While the Christian is able to understand the perspectives and reasons given above, there is also an awareness of a far deeper reason that such charitable works should be done. Looking to God’s revelation, the Christian knows that each human being is made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27). This likeness endows each person with a tremendous dignity and worth simply because they are human. Furthermore, each person is beloved in the eyes of God our Father and as Jesus said: “…whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Mat. 25:40).”
Often these Christian motivations are looked upon by the secular humanist as being outdated superstitious motives. These motives are sometimes criticized as being selfish motives seeking divine rewards or fearfully desiring to avoid divine punishment. In spite of the attacks that secularists often make on the Christian motives of humanism, history attests that they are consistent through generations. For centuries the poor have been fed, the homeless given shelter and the sick cared for by religious and pious believers because of these religious motives. As the secular movement continues its aggression toward religion in general, one could question if the secular motives will stand the test of time as the Christian motives have. For the moment, let us set aside the tremendously different ideas that Christians and secularist often hold about how to advance the common good of humanity. Let us ask if, heaven forbid, the secular movement drives religion out of our society, will the future generations find the secular motives for humanism convincing? Once the notion of all people being precious and beloved is no longer supported by divine authority, will future generations continue to believe that all people are worth helping? Without God, the only sure anchor of truth, will the self-evident goodness of helping the unfortunate remain self-evident, or will such persons be seen as the weak who have a duty to die so that the strong might thrive? Will the emotional fulfillment of helping people in need be able to withstand the policy arguments that our society would be better off without such people? In short, without God, can secular humanism remain humane? The historical examples of Soviet Russia and Hitler’s Germany seem to suggest to that it will not.