This part was written from the perspective of J.A.C. Fagginger Auer and Julian
Hartt, co-authors of Humanism vs. Theism published by The Iowa State University
Press in 1981.
Humanism is a philosophy which places the affairs of man above the interests of
a superhuman and considers man to be in control of these affairs. It asserts that
all things, great or small, possess intrinsic value which cannot be borrowed.
Because of this, each life is seen as important. Truth has no meaning apart from human
consciousness and is conformity with reality.
They do not criticize theism because of a belief in a personal deity but because it declares
it on an undoubted fact before it earns the right to do so. God is then the conclusion but
is erroneously placed at the beginning of the argument and not at the end. The unknown is
to be explained by the assistance of the known, not vice versa as religion attempts to do.
Humanists realize that man is the known, God is the unknown, and should then serve in
explanation of the concept of the divine.
No proof has yet to be offered for God’s existence which is universally accepted. People
rely upon faith and hope to do what scientific research is currently unable to do. The
possibility of gaining certainty of the existence of God through faith is not denied, but
it points out this is a purely subjective experience.
Below is a brief set of proofs offered by theists for God’s existence and answered by the humanist:
HUMANIST: An assumption of God’s ability to reveal himself without doubt is made which is in itself
questionable. Personal revelations are flimsy evidence and often support contradictory claims.
HUMANIST: If life truly has no meaning without God than it may well be meaningless and chaotic. Those
who do not accept theistic doctrine find life to be highly enjoyable and worthwhile.
HUMANIST: Great men have been wrong about many things over time. “The fifth century cannot be allowed to legislate for the
20th Century, even in matters of theology.”
Salvation is the result of believing in something about someone else and comes from the outside. Theists assert religion’s
role is to save you from the effect of unfortunate circumstances and therefore points to an outside source of power that
can deal with any problem. The presence of sin, whose existence is understood, does not prove man to be totally sinful and
more likely to sin than do good. For if that was the case than human civilization would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
“Whenever the minus signs outnumber the plus signs, life in any form becomes an impossibility.”
A war between the spirit and flesh is understood. Theists state that it stems from man turning its back on God, the force
that could bring closure to this inner discord. Humanists ask if God is capable of stopping this inner war why hasn’t He done
it before? Did He commit an error when man was created which allowed this division? If so, is he to start work all over again?
If man can be remade so easily then he has no power of free expression and is simply a “thing.” If he is a person this Being has
no power to remake him.
Humanism agrees that the chief aim of religion is to be the integration of man but stops short of saying it can be wholly completed.
Theism uses absolute terms and it says it concludes with the resolution of problems, end of sin, and no more temptation. Humanism
uses relative terms and asserts that the end of the process yields stability, and a reduction of friction. For the humanist life is
the overcoming of resistance and unnecessary inward friction. Without this friction motion becomes impossible and life ceases to
exist.
“It is unfair, in fact foolish, to judge the average man by a standard so high that few can reach it, or so low that only a relatively
small number descend to it.”
Auer asks two interesting questions. First, “Why do men become interested in the idea of God?” To this question he offers the answer
that it is because God does something for them they are unable to do for themselves. Secondly he asks, “What do men desire that God shall
do for them?” He says they simply want God to solve problems for them that they do not possess the ability to answer. It is for these
two reasons that the concept of God developed. But even as we began to shed light on areas previously left for religion to explain, as
control over the forces of nature and medicine, others existed that still boggle man’s mind as death, sorrow, and the meaning of life.
On these latter matters we are still powerless.
God is defined in absolute terms, as omniscient, perfect, infinite, omnipotent, and free from limitations, which creates a chasm between
Him and man which is impossible to cross. What does this mean for religion? Simply, there can exist no points of contact between one
thing and its opposite, or infinite and finite man. To compare man with God is to place man in a negative light. Only when man is compared
with other men can he be seen as having positive qualities.
Theism could not have discerned the limitless God in a universe riddled with limitation or in man who suffers the same “defect.” If man
has so many limitations his knowledge is then restricted to the finite and he cannot comprehend God. If in turn God limits Himself to allow
us to understand Him, we still do not see God as He really is.
Man, the humanist admits, does not live up to his function well because there is a great deal of good that is not realized. But humanism
does not look down on man because of his limitations, but says that in the long run we may trust man and the common sense that guides him.
Religion errors when it starts its reasoning with God, the less known, and works its way down to man, the best known. Humanism begins with
man but does not reason up to God since it has not yet discovered God. It relies on man’s own ability to bring about improvement, both for himself
and the world.
A question is raised of who defines the nature of sin and virtue, God or man. It is obvious how the two sides answer, but if theism is correct
than man’s only recourse is to accept the verdict. Since we cannot comprehend what the divine’s answer is, the reason why theists assert God
as the source remains uncertain. If God is the source of all moral law than man is held to absolute standards for which he is incapable of maintaining.
Also, if we cannot define God’s intent on virtue how can we understand his answer to virtue? Humanism adamantly insists the moral law originates from
our experience and changes this experience.
Humanists define sin as, “...a deliberate action against rules which our experience teaches us must be obeyed if men are to be happy.” Evil results
from the lack of proper insight or information, not evil intent. Claiming war is a result of man’s sinfulness is nonsensical, especially since the majority
of men prefer peace over chaos. Humanists recognize that wrong exists but insists that more good is present than evil. This is evidenced by the fact that
society is still in existence, for a majority of negative qualities would spell the end of human civilization.
“Theism is constantly impoverishing man to enrich his Creator.”
Salvation was basically put in the hand’s of God although the Catholic Church did allow for man to influence this through good deeds. God determined what
the path to salvation was while man was only left to break the laws the Heavenly Father established. The humanist would be quick to ask what we are saved from
and so this concept of salvation does not enter into his vocabulary. Sin for them is willingly acting against a moral law in full knowledge of its validity.
They see man going through an active change, of his own accord, when we “choose to sit in judgment of our selves, pronounce judgment against ourselves, and then
act in accordance with that judgement.” This is salvation for the humanist.
The religionist fails to see evil, sin, illness, and death as a normal part of life but strives for a life without friction, a complete deliverance from the
flesh. This rejection of the world the way it is denotes a lack of courage and a lack of the sense of real on the part of the religionist.
Humanism tells us to accept anything we find ready for our hands to use and use it for the purposes it was created to fulfill. The humanists asks, “Why doubt our
power to take care of our own affairs without supernatural aid and thus lame our hands?”
Theists say there are values that are determined by God since He created the universe and must know what is good for it. He tells us what our interests are or
should be. These values which are permanent require a permanent keeper and man, who is a transient being, is unable to fulfill this role. Theists are quick to
point out that values are eternal ways in which this creator plans to handle human lives so that they may hold some value.
Humanists are quick to assert that this system begs the question since it asserts the existence of a personal God. Furthermore, man lives by activity and
creating values is the highest form of activity. Man should take the initiative over his value system, not some supernatural power outside himself. “Man is the
seat of authority, and uses that authority to determine the worth of anything with which he comes into contact.”
Humanism and theism are both striving for the same end but their purposes differ. Religionists want complete knowledge so as to understand God’s ways while
the humanist desires complete knowledge to be able to control things he has come to know.
If you would like to comment on this site forward correspondence to the e-mail address below. All messages will be responded to unless otherwise noted. If you desire direct e-mail debate, please forward an e-mail address to which correspondence can be sent to. Average response time is one week.
