I've never been the type of student to argue with professors, I usually just take their word on the subject and leave it as that. Even if I disagree with them I would never consider making a fuss about it. The only argument I've gotten into with a professor was with my Social Theory professor who is a self-proclaimed Secular Humanist.
Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no inherent moral or ethical code with which humanity has been imbued, but that by our reasoning and rationale we are compelled to moral action for the benefit of our lives.
Honestly, this is in my opinion the biggest philosophical turd that has ever been laid (at least since relativism...my blog could also be called anti-secular-humanism...but that wouldn't be as catchy). Nevermind the teleological considerations of a belief which is grounded upon the belief that there are no grounds for belief. It's just impractical.
People, as nice as they look on Amnesty International commercials, are a bunch of ruthless, debase scoundrels who will do whatever is within their power to pull themselves up at the cost of those around them. We ourselves are so clearly incapable of love, even hurting those closest to us. By what means do we expect to love the world? By our own efforts?
Bull shit.
"the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28
It is only by His example, His power, His redemption that we are able to love the world. "[the world] could never have treated him with the same degree of spite and hatred with which he had treated Jesus Christ. Once we realize that Jesus has served us even to the depths of our meagerness, our selfishness, and our sin, nothing we encounter from others will be able to exhaust our determination to serve others for His sake." - Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest (February 23, 2010)
Secular Humanism (n.) - Giant philosophical turd.
7 years ago
3 comments:
Secular humanism is an easy way to justify ethical considerations without having to make a truth claim. It's easier to live in an ethical system that's all relative.
In the end, isn't secular humanism just watered down morality? Treat people well, until...(insert personal hardship). As long as you can justify, through reason, that you shouldn't care for the "other" any longer, everything's acceptable. As long as it's...reasonable.
Human reason can justify all sorts of horrid things.
The Third Reich concluded that social, economic, and political stability can only be achieved by eliminating the Jews.
Secular humanism would be denying it's own relativity by claiming that the Holocaust was evil. To secular humanism, it's not good or evil, it's just reasonable.
But, can't we finally agree (except for Bishop Williamson) that what happened, was...wrong.
in the end, without a higher justice or law, i don't think anyone can explain how we determine what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, reasonable or unreasonable, morality or immorality.
If there was no moral code, we would feel obligated to take matters into our own hands.. but because we have a God who is just and make all wrongs right and will correct all that sin has destroyed, it gives us the ability to live lives of peace. yes? i dont know.. i'm not very philosophical.
also i'm not on gchat cuz i got a new battery and am not forced to leave my comp at home plugged into the wall. FREEDOM!
Post a Comment