The Secular Attack on Christianity/Program 5
| September 30, 2013 |
By: Dr. Paul Kurtz, Dr. Norman Geisler; ©1986 |
How could anybody challenge me to perform something self-sacrificing, ever, if I believe that I am the product of chance, plus time, plus the impersonal, and I got here by accident, and all that there is is my existence? Why should I care about anything else? Plus Questions and Answers from the Audience Segment 1 |
Contents
Introduction
- Ankerberg: Welcome. Weāre talking about Secular Humanism. My guests tonight are Dr. Paul Kurtz, the man who drafted the Humanist Manifesto II and A Secular Humanist Declaration. Heās also the editor of the main secular humanist magazine in America entitled Free Inquiry, and heās Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Also, Dr. Norman Geisler, a Christian scholar, who is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and the author of many books on philosophy and theology.
- Weāre getting down to questions from the audience, but Iād like to start you off on one that we havenāt approached anywhere before, and that is the fact that if you do leave out God, as the Humanist Manifesto suggests that modern man ought to do, it seems like you have a real tough problem motivating anybody. And I know youāve written a book on that, but let me see if I can outline it here. And that is that to motivate people, for example, let me just give you one of the things that you say in the Manifesto II. You say, āThe commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable.ā But the question is, whatās the motivation for a person to commit himself to āall of mankind,ā when this is true ā since āa personās life in this world [according to the secular humanist philosophy] is his basic tangible value? Any action which threatens or does not advance this possession would seem to be irrational.ā Why should I ever set any moral obligation above the ends that serve my own self-interests? How could anybody challenge me to perform something self-sacrificing, ever, if I believe that I am the product of chance, plus time, plus the impersonal, and I got here by accident, and all that there is is my existence? Why should I care about anything else, Paul?
- Kurtz: Well, I teach moral philosophy at the University. This is the basic question of Western ethics. Humanism is the oldest intellectual tradition in Western civilization. It goes back to the Greeks and the Romans through the Renaissance, up to the development of modern science to the present. And one of the basic themes is this question of āmoral obligation.ā And the great philosophers from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, John Stuart Mill, down to the present have raised that question over and over again. I think life is meaningful; that itās full of adventure and goals and plans; that human beings can lead a significant life here and now and be concerned with human justice, the world community, and other fellow men and women on this planet without necessarily believing in God. So itās a mistake to think that only those people who believe a certain religion are moral, when indeed the whole history of the West and other civilizations indicates that other people have had other moral purposes and achieved a good life.
- Ankerberg: I understand where youāre coming from. I donāt believe it, but I understand it. Let me see how you would argue, then, with somebody who would take the opposite position. The French Philosopher, Julien Offray de LaMettrie, put it this way: āLet us conclude boldly then,ā ā you know, using that we are an accident here, chance plus time, plus the impersonal, and āVoila!ā here we are! ā āLet us conclude boldly [under that kind of a system] that man is a machine. And that in the whole universe there is but a single substance with various modifications.ā Now, if man is a machine who is here by accident, there was no intelligence that got him here; there was no reason for him to be here, he just got here. He is as valuable, as one of the Supreme Court justices said, āThere is no difference between a man, a baboon, and a rock, and a drop of water because they all got here the same way. And thereās no reason for them to get here except by accident, they all showed up.ā So, now, how do you motivate that person?
- Kurtz: I donāt know the Supreme Court justice who said that, but you must really be quoting him out of context. But I do find that human beings are different than rocks and baboons. Weāve created human civilization. We believe in the arts. We believe in creating a good society where we are motivated by science and literature, by shared experience, by the moral decencies. Itās not necessarily true that the only people who are moral and fulfill the good life are the people who accept a specific religious point of view. I think life is very meaningful, and the plan and project of man is to create the good life. Itās an adventure. Itās full of joy. And many millions of people have found the same thing.
- Ankerberg: Here is what Oliver Wendell Holmes actually said ā Supreme Court justice from 1902 to 1932: āI see no reason for attributing to man a significant difference in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand. I believe that our personality is a cosmic ganglion ā just as when certain rays meet and cross there is white light at the meeting point. That is all.ā
- Kurtz: Well, human personality; yes, I believe it is cherished; itās precious. I believe in human individuality and creativity. And men and women have dreamed and believed in this throughout the whole history of humankind.
- Ankerberg: Okay.
- Kurtz: And they have built cities, and theyāve climbed mountains, and theyāve explored the universe. And theyāve developed poetry and art and music. Whatās the problem? I mean, thatās all part of the adventure of living ā without worrying about salvation, about the afterlife, or without only preparing for whatās going to happen after you die. Live here and now; thatās the secular morality. Live here and now and create the good life.
- Ankerberg: So, man doesnāt need God at all. Thereās really no need that he has for God.
- Kurtz: Well, I think God is invented in the image of man. If lions had a god, they would be lion-like in character. Some people apparently think that they need religious belief; they need God. I donāt. I think I can lead the good life without that myth.
- Ankerberg: Dr. Geisler, do you agree with that?
- Geisler: Well, I agree with Paul that you can be moral without being religious, and you can be moral without believing in God. The problem is, you canāt justify being moral. Let me illustrate that. Many humanists have many wonderful values, including Paul. Theyāre for tolerance, theyāre for freedom, theyāre for peace in the world. Theyāre against Hitler, theyāre against the Holocaust. They have many wonderful values. So they believe in moral prescriptions. The problem is, how can you have an absolute moral prescription, or even an ultimate moral prescription, anything worthy of committing yourself to as a religion ā as many humanists believe it is ā if you donāt have an ultimate moral prescriber? You donāt have laws without legislators and prescriptions without prescribers. And yet, the very same humanists who really make an ultimate commitment to these moral principles donāt believe there is an ultimate prescriber to make the moral principles possible. So they can believe in them without there being a God, but they canāt justify believing in them without there being a God.
- Kurtz: On the contraryā¦.
- Ankerberg: Youāre saying that theyāre illogical, at that point, then. Irrational.
- Geisler: Yes.
- Kurtz: Well, Norman, you know the philosophers have debated this point for 2500 years and they disagree with you on that point. They talk about the autonomy of ethics. Ethics grows out of human experience. There is a development of moral awareness, moral appreciation, a moral conscience. You can test moral judgments by their consequences in human life. I mean, there is such a thing as moral wisdom and moral growth. I donāt see where you have to bring in some outside force to support this.
- Ankerberg: Didnāt G. E. Moore in The Naturalistic Fallacy prove that just what youāre saying isnāt possible to come up with an ultimate?
- Kurtz: Well, I donāt know that you need an ultimate. I wouldnāt say that ethics is derived from an ultimate principle. I do think that there are moral principles that I believe in. Theyāre general principles and they grow out of human experience and human life. And they can be justified in the context of life.
- Ankerberg: Then if you donāt have an ultimate, if you donāt have an absolute, how would you argue with Hitler who said, āWhat we really need to do is get rid of five million Jews.ā
- Kurtz: Well, I think, of course, that Hitler was wrong and Iām against genocideā¦
- Ankerberg: But on what basis, Paul, if there are no absolutes?
- Kurtz: Because of the horrible consequences of cruelty and terror and murder of innocent human beings. One doesnāt need absolutes to oppose that.
- Ankerberg: But Marquis de Sade took the evolutionary theory and said, āIf the strongest survive, then Iāll go around and beat women.ā So there we got Sadism out of that. And he was absolutely logical, according to your philosophy. Why was he wrong?
- Kurtz: He wasnāt logical. No, not at all. Of course I reject that. But, you know, in the name of God men and women have created infamies and theyāve performed every kind of cruelty. If you believe in the Fatherhood of God, as the Mohammedans, you can believe in polygamy. They believe in the Fatherhood of God. Or the Mormons believed in the Fatherhood of God and believed in polygamy.
- Ankerberg: I can see their motivation. Theyāre wrong in their belief, but I can see their motivation, having an ultimate reference point. But I donāt see any reference point for what youāre saying.
- Kurtz: Look. But the thing is, you take the religious point of view. You can take the religious point of view and people deduce exactly opposite principles. Christians believe in abortion and theyāre against abortion in the name of God. They believe in divorce and theyāre against divorce. Morality, it seems to me, is the data of human experience that should be examined in its own terms without presupposing these assumptions.
- Ankerberg: Okay, Norman, you just got done with a great research project on the area of abortion. Letās speak and use that as an example. Some Christians agree and disagree. What would you say?
- Geisler: Well, hereās a good example. I think if a humanist were truly humanist, heād be pro-life. Because we know medically, life begins at conception. Thereās no medical doubt about the fact that a fertilized ovum is a 100 percent genetic human being. Its sex is determined. Thereās no doubt about the fact that the babies that are being killed today ā with fingerprints, heartbeat, blood type, fully functioning ā are human beings. And I think the humanists someday are going to sit around in smoke-filled rooms and say to themselves, āWe shouldnāt have let those Evangelicals grab that pro-life thing. Weāre humanists. Weāre for human life. And yet weāre only for it after it begins at birth, not after it begins at conception.ā I think the travesty. Hitler only killed six million Jews, weāve killed 18 million unborn human beings in America in the last 13 years. I think humanists ought to all repent and get on the pro-life side. Like Bernard Nathanson, who is a Jewish atheist, did and wrote a book, Aborting America, after he had personally killed 60,000 of them. He got de-humanized because that moral principles finally got through to him. A moral absolute came through to him, and he said, āThis is morally wrong.ā
- Kurtz: Norman, on this point there are liberal Christians and liberal Jews and liberal Catholics, indeed, who donāt agree with you on abortion and do not believe that the women should not have freedom of choice. My point is simply that even if you believe in God, there are differences of opinion in the moral domain, and believe in conviction that a human personality does not begin until later. Now, I donāt think that abortion should be resorted to as a method of birth control. I think it ought to be a reflective decision of a woman. On the other hand, I wouldnāt deny her the right of free choice at some point after reflective process.
- Geisler: But, Paul, you base your beliefs as a humanist on scientific evidence. Itās not a matter of religious belief. Iām not concerned about their religious belief. The scientific facts are that theyāre human from the point of conception. So, I donāt think somebodyās religious belief should be imposed upon these innocent human beings. They have a right to their belief, but they donāt have a right to kill innocent human beings.
- Kurtz: I thought that you were arguing against abortion on religious ground. Youāre not doing it independent of religion.
- Geisler: Iām arguing on moral, on factual grounds. Scienceā¦
- Kurtz: Okay. I donāt disagreeā¦.
- Geisler: Scientifically, itās a human being.
- Kurtz: Thatās my point. That you can argue moral questions independent of religion. Thereās an autonomy of moral decision-making.
- Geisler: I admitted that.
- Kurtz: I didnāt think John did. But in regard to abortion, Norman, on this point, I think that what you have at conception is a fetus or a conceptus, and not a living human being or not a human personality which develops.
- Geisler: The āpersonalityā is a philosophical, religious term about which people debate. There is no debate about the fact of being a 100 percent genetically human being; and weāve got to stick with the scientific facts.
- Kurtz: Well, you know, but then you get into these great moral tragedies. What would you do if a woman is raped? Would you then say in the first week after the conception that there ought not to be an abortion?
- Geisler: Ask Ethel Waters about that. Her mother was raped.
- Kurtz: Well, what would you say about that?
- Geisler: I would say that rape is a terrible crime, but we ought to punish the guilty rapist, not the innocent baby.
- Kurtz: But then what do you do⦠not have⦠say in the first week you would compel this woman to give birth? On what basis can you do that? I mean, this is an invasion of her body and it seems to me a woman has a right of freedom of choice. And you can make a moral case that a woman ought to be permitted to have an abortion under such conditions.
- Geisler: A woman has a right of freedom of choice, but she does not have the right to freely kill another innocent human being. And it is a scientific fact that it is another innocent human being in her womb and she doesnāt have the right to kill it.
- Kurtz: Well, itās not an innocent human being, itās a fetus. Itās a fetus.
- Geisler: Itās a medical, genetic scientific fact that it is humanā¦
- Kurtz: And itās not innocent, becauseā¦
- Geisler: Well, did it sin? You donāt believe in the original sin, do you?
- Kurtz: No. But, surely, the fetus has invaded her body. Itās not entirely innocent. If someone came here and plugged into you, you see, and so you are going to stay in this position for nine monthsā¦. It has invaded her.
- Geisler: What youāre saying is she has a right to kill it because itās getting her food from her. Then any mother after the baby is born has the right to kill it because it is still getting the food from her.
- Kurtz: In a democratic, free, open, pluralistic society, these are arguable questions. And itās very difficult to say at what point does the fetus become a human being with rights.
- Geisler: No itās not difficult at all. There was a subcommittee hearing recently in Washington and virtually every scientist that came there, including the famous world geneticist, LeJeune from France, said that ālife begins at conception.ā Thatās not what theyāre debating about.
- Kurtz: But weāre not talking about life. Something begins at conception.
- Geisler: Weāre talking about human life.
- Kurtz: Itās a conceptus or a fetus, but there is a developmental process. Now, I agree that later in the pregnancy I would not have an abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger. And a woman ought to have an abortion early, letās say in the first trimester, or the second trimester.
- Geisler: But itās no more human later. There is no new genetic information added after the point of conception.
- Kurtz: There is a developmental process.
- Geisler: There is no new genetic information added.
- Kurtz: Well, but the fetus grows as it is nourished by the mother.
- Geisler: Well, you grow after you are born. Can we kill people because theyāre small?
- Kurtz: Okay. Of course, you know, you can argue⦠well, but a fetus is not a person, thatās the point.
- Geisler: Now wait a minute. A āperson,ā as defined by what?
- Kurtz: The fetus is a āpotentialā person. Itās as if you would argue that one ought not to practice contraception because the sperm or the egg is a potential person in the same sense.
- Geisler: Who said a fetus is not a person? Philosophers and theologians? Iām not talking about religion and philosophyā¦
- Kurtz: āPersonalityā develops later.
- Geisler: ā¦Iām talking about cold, hard, scientific facts ā that you like as a humanist.
- Kurtz: Itās not cold, hard, scientific facts. On this point, a moral attitude is applied to the developmental process.
- Geisler: Itās not a question of moral attitude. I think if we took a survey, Paul, wouldnāt you agree that 98 to 99 percent of the country would answer this question in the affirmative: āDo you believe itās wrong to kill an innocent human being?ā Right? Wouldnāt you say 98 percent of the country would say that itās wrong to kill an innocent human being?
- Kurtz: Yes, of course. But the question, the definition is whether the fetus is an innocent human being.
- Geisler: Thatās right. Let me finish. Then there is only one question really left, and thatās a factual question: āIs a fertilized ovum a human being?ā And when 23 chromosomes from a male sperm unite with 23 chromosomes from a female ovum, it is a scientific fact that that 46 chromosomes is a human being.
- Kurtz: Itās āpotential.ā
- Geisler: Itās not āpotential.ā Itās a human life with āgreat potential.ā It is not a āpotentialā life.
- Kurtz: Well, it is not fully developed as a potential human being.
- Geisler: Neither is a four-year-old fully developed.
- Kurtz: You could argue against birth control, as many devout Catholics have, because either the sperm or an egg are potential human beings.
- Geisler: Weāre not talking about birth control.
- Kurtz: They use the same argument, that therefore this is a āsinā to do that. So, at what point do you split the developmental process and say, āDoes human personality begin or does not begin?ā
- Geisler: Weāre not talking about human personality. Thatās what philosophers argue about.
- Kurtz: In any case, it seems to me women have rights and men should not simply impose their standards on women and sayā¦
- Geisler: I agree! I agree.
- Kurtz: ⦠āYou must carry this fetus to term, no matter what: even if itās a product of rape; even if itās a deformed fetus as testing can reveal; even if your life is at stake.ā
- Geisler: But, Paul, when youāre talking about imposing your moral standard on someone else, and your religious beliefs, that unborn, innocent human being is having someone else impose their standards on them in not allowing them to live. I think thatās immoral.
- Kurtz: Well, but itās an open question. There are many people who disagree with you that that is an innocent human being. Itās just your definition. Youāre imposing your definition.
- Ankerberg: Alright, let me jump in here. And that is that in Roe vs. Wade ā I want to pull a point out in what youāre talking about here ā abortion was legalized because the state saw no reason to protect the life of the unborn. They redefined āpersonhoodā there. They didnāt look at the scientific evidence.
- Kurtz: Thatās not true, John. The Supreme Court said that people will disagree theologically and metaphysically about when human life or human personality begins, and therefore it ought to be a right of individual conscience.
- Ankerberg: The Court says the state has no interest or right to protect it.
- Kurtz: They said that because honest people disagree on this point; therefore the individual ought to decide whether or not she wants to have an abortion or not have an abortion.
- Ankerberg: No. No. No. They said, āBecause itās not of sufficient value to the state.ā And what I want to draw out of this, Paulā¦
- Kurtz: The state said it should not interveneā¦.
- Ankerberg: ā¦is the fact that when you have a āSecular State,ā like youāre talking about, with your values that do not have any absolutes, that we get caught in this kind of thing that āpersonhoodā can be defined just like it was in Hitlerās time. And that when you have relative values and you have no absolute, you have no God over the law, the Supreme Court can take a check among themselves and say, āThis is what weāre going to decide.ā There is no standard.
- Kurtz: Well, I think that what the Supreme Court was arguing for was the principle of freedom of conscience and liberty of conscience.
- Ankerberg: All 50 states had already passed the law forbidding it.
- Kurtz: And it recognized that in our democratic society people will disagree. And it therefore afforded to women the right of freedom of choice to those who wish an abortion.
- Ankerberg: All 50 states had already passed the law forbidding it. And it was only by an injunction of the Supreme Court on their āhighly thronesā up there that decided that the whole United States was wrong.
- Geisler: What Paul is saying is right. The Supreme Court said, āThe right of privacy comes over the right of life.ā And thatās absolutely absurd. You donāt have the right privately to kill children in your basement. If itās a human being, the right of privacy never takes precedence over the right to life.
- Kurtz: The right of privacy is the right of a woman over her own body.
- Geisler: But a fetus is not part of her body. A fetus could be male, sheās female; has its own blood type; has its own brainwave from 40 days on. You take a black embryo and transplant into a white womb, and that woman will have a black baby. Itās not part of her body. Itās an individual human being of its own. And the last time the Supreme Court said āsomebody wasnāt a personā was in 1857 when they said blacks werenāt persons. And it took 11 years to reverse that. Itās time we reverse this tragedy.
- Kurtz: The Supreme Court neither affirmed nor denied whether or not a fetus was a person. They said this was an open questionā¦.
- Geisler: Thatās wrong, Paul.
- Kurtz: What it did affirm was the defense of women against the effortsā¦
- Geisler: All you have to do is read it. You obviously havenāt read Roe vs. Wade.
- Kurtz: I have read it very carefully. It was in defense of women against the effort by men or the state to impose pregnancy. It was a defense of reproduction freedom.
- Geisler: I ask anybody out there to go to your library and get Roe vs. Wade and read it, and youāll see that what he said is wrong. The Supreme Court said, āYou are not a person before you are born.ā