Humanism from Ben’s contribution in class last Sunday

In Apologetics, Prayer, Satan, Sin on February 19, 2009 at 4:01 am

For those of you in my bible study, I thought you might want to analyze the passages I read last Sunday in Dan and Mike’s class from The Philosophy of Humanism (below). Dan, you are welcome to copy this note in your blog. They highlight a major worldview regarding human conduct. We noted how most ethical systems of the world do not have a concept of repentance, including the humanistic view below. Without repentance, a person is bound to get stuck in a rut, or downward spiral, however you’d like to look at it. I wonder if Lamont ever analyzed or objectively looked at the consequences of basing an ethical system on consequences rather than on God’s word. Hmmmm? Anyone is free to comment on that one. =)

Per Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology): “Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.” I truly feel sorrowful when I read Matthew 27 :46

“At about three in the afternoon Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'”

It was at this moment that God the Father turned His back on His most beloved Son because He had taken on everyone’s sins.

from The Philosophy of Humanism by Corliss Lamont

pg 249
Much of the emphasis in supernaturalist ethics has been
negative, calling on people continually to deny many of their
most wholesome impulses in order to keep their souls pure
and undefiled for that life after death which is so very much
more important than life before death. In this ethics the prospect
of supernatural rewards and punishments in the future
overshadows present conduct; the values decreed by supernatural
authority override those of the natural and temporal
order in which we actually live.

By contrast, the emphasis of Humanist and naturalistic
ethics is positive.* It is an ethics in which conscience does
not merely play the role of a vetoing censor, but is creative
in the sense of bringing to the fore new and higher values.
This system of morality recommends the greater and more
frequent enjoyment of earthly goods on the part of all people
everywhere; it repudiates ascetic other-worldliness in favor
of buoyant this-worldliness; it is against all defeatist systems
which either postpone happiness to an after-existence or recommend
acquiescence to social injustice in this existence.

pg 253
For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of
themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by
its consequences for the individual and society. Knowledge
of the good, then, must be worked out, like knowledge of
anything else, through the examination and evaluation of the
concrete consequences of an idea or hypothesis. Humanist
ethics draws its guiding principles from human experience
and tests them in human experience. Since, as I pointed out
in the last chapter, knowledge of anything is in the first instance
never immediate, there can be no immediate knowledge
of the right. However, once we have established or accepted
a regulative principle of morality, we are able to use it
immediately thereafter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: