An Observation on the Debate

The following is an essay Paul Murano wrote after attending last Saturday's debate.

Christianity vs. Humanism: Which offers the greater hope for humanity? - - An observation

While I was watching the debate between Christians and Humanists I was struck by a few things. First I was impressed that people of different worldviews had the good will to get together and learn about each other, to gain further insight into why we think the way we do. It was a display of community outreach that could bring about positive results.

It wasn’t too long before I realized that one of the gentlemen who represented Humanism was not debating Christianity, but rather distortions of Christianity. He made clear his problem with the unreasonableness of fundamentalist beliefs (and the way the secular media likes to caricature them). This is not necessarily his fault; he may not have known that the Catholic Christians on the other side of the panel would also reject those beliefs. With absolutely no disrespect to Protestants, Catholics believe that Christ established the Church 2000 years ago and in an unbroken succession the fullness of truth and grace still subsides in the Catholic Church. To Chesterton and Catholics in general Catholicism is true Christianity; other denominations have a portion of the truth. This is not an arrogant claim, but a sincere assessment based on history, tradition, and faith. So there was a fundamental difference in how each side of the debate defined Christianity to begin with. In fact Catholics would agree with Humanists on the points that he mentioned, which specifically related to preserving the environment, the reactionary and vengeful attitude displayed after 9/11, and that the world is much more than 6000 years old; and Catholics do not believe that everyone in the world is going to hell if they don’t explicitly believe in Jesus or that everything is pre-determined including who will be saved, as the humanists accused. I have often found that those who reject the Catholic Church usually aren’t rejecting Catholicism, but a false image or representation of it. For this reason, and because of the fact that there is also a Christian Humanism, it might have been a good idea to call the event, “Catholic Christianity vs. Secular Humanism” or simply “Catholicism vs. Humanism”.

I came out of the debate realizing that the difference between the two sides was not in these accusations but in something more basic. What I saw that night was that one side respected human reason as a way to attain truth, and so did the other. One side had a love for science and the scientific method, and so did the other. The difference was that one side recognized something more than these two ways to certitude. In recognition that man is limited in his being and potential knowledge and with a belief that the Creator of the universe has not remained in hiding, faith is added to reason and science as a complementary and vital avenue to truth. Faith in authority, which we all practice, is extended to the ultimate Authority, the God and Creator of the universe who has revealed Himself to restore the relationship lost with those created in His image. The Garden of Eden story spoke of the rebellion called original sin where a personified serpent gave man and woman the ultimate seduction: If you reject God “You will be your own gods”. That seduction from the Evil One echoes throughout history, and in the 20^th century into the 21^st secular humanism in all its forms explicitly took the bait; and as God originally warned suffering and death is the result. Only one side hold the faith that they are loved by God and have been given the means to overcome suffering and death - to enter what surpasses this life into never-ending joy.

The Humanists considered their position to be the humble non-elitist position because they claim not to have received any special revelation from above. But I would challenge that assessment and propose that the opposite is true, for two reasons:

1. There was a certainty that supernatural claims are make-believe. But how could someone know this, for this knowledge would transcend the limits of human reason and the scientific method. It is like a fish claiming to be certain there is no reality outside of his experience of ocean life. That would be a foolish claim.

2. Because of this rejection secular humanism in effect claims man to be his own ultimate authority, his own god. Man can create his own truth and reality, and redefine morality according to his liking. This seems considerably less humble than recognizing and submitting to One higher than himself.

So why do Christians believe that this supernatural realm does exist? The onus would actually be on Humanism to prove it doesn’t. Religion and language are two universal traits that separate human beings from all the other earthly animals. It is “hardwired” into human nature - children and primitive tribes all have a sense of the supernatural and an innate propensity for language. Religious belief remains until or unless it is brainwashed out of us. This usually happens in our modern culture at around the time of adolescence when the loud voices of cynical secular media and academia get hold of us. Socially it has occurred with the modern post-Christian movement, after our opulence led us to believe we could be our own gods and create our own reality. But why, we might ask, do human beings begin with such propensities for symbolic language and religious belief? Perhaps there’s a connection. Both point to an immaterial or spiritual component in man that can grasp immaterial things like ideas, thoughts, and essences. We come into the world with a propensity to believe in something higher than the senses can experience, beyond what we could ever know empirically. By nature we seek God, and by faith we believe He seeks us.

Every human propensity has an external object that satisfies it: hunger is a sign that there is food for the body, thirst that there is water, a mind that thinks and conceives ideas points to an immaterial dimension of the world, a heart that seeks perfect love is a sign that there is a perfect Lover that will fulfill it, and hope for happily-ever-after found in literature throughout history, is a sign that there is one, heaven. All of these desires are common and universal and can be said to spring innately from our human nature. Each of them points to an external reality that is meant to satisfy them.

The debate spent a lot of time speaking about what each side stood for but not as much time on the actual question posed, which was: Which holds the greater hope for humanity?

Let’s look at this objectively and succinctly. Secular humanism claims that we may create a better and more peaceful existence without God, and as a result have more hope. Let’s see if this deems true. Secular humanists would live their lives for the smaller goals that we all do, like developing one’s talents, cultivating friends, loving one’s spouse, caring for one’s children, contributing to one’s community, and the like. Mixed in with all of this, for the few decades we have on earth is tragedy, heartbreak, sickness, suffering, and death of loved ones. If we’re lucky we might have eight or nine decades of experiencing this before we die. Then our bodies decay and decompose and within a couple of generations no one on earth will remember you nor care about you or your memory. In a nutshell this is the hope of the secular humanist. On a larger scale, in the past century humanist utopias have been tried and miserably failed. In the 20^th Century the socialist humanist movements of Communism and Nazism not only failed but contributed to the greatest killing of humanity in history. Humanists would claim that religion has been the cause of many wars. I would say people are the cause of wars and religion has often been used as an excuse. That’s a criticism of the dark side of people, not religion; for people would find another excuse if religion was not available. [But let’s relate this to the current debate. How many Catholic countries have been known for going to war? Tribal wars continue from time immemorial, there have been brutal wars in the Far East and Middle East, and there have been two world wars in the past century, but none of the major players were Catholic nations. Catholic countries like Italy, Poland, Ireland, and most in Central and South America never have been war-like. Only when infiltrated by outside aggressive forces have there been defensive skirmishes (such as in Nicaragua and Northern Ireland).]

Is there any more hope in the Christian worldview? Christian hope is tied to eternity and eternity is tied to time. This life is the springboard, the womb that prepares us for the life to come. Our hope is in a God who is infinite goodness and love, who cares about us and seeks to help us through the misery and injustice that we as a human race have gotten ourselves into. And Christian hope is in everlasting life of total fulfillment, not life for a few decades with struggle. When time is not related to eternity this life becomes ultimately meaningless. The Christian hope is that the innate desires we all possess as human beings will be fully satisfied, and that true fulfillment and never-ending joy will be realized after the period of living the consequences of our own selfishness has been completed. Everything that occurs now is believed to have a reason, and is directed toward that end which never ends. As Christians know from the New Testament all things work for good for those who love God; and that eye has not seen nor ear has heard the wonders that God has on store for those who love Him; where every tear will be wiped away and there will be no more death or mourning, weeping or pain, for the old order will have passed away.

In comparing which of the two views offers the greater hope, you make the call.

Paul Murano