This note will begin the explanation of the subject diagram. This first note will cover background information and proceed through a better description of the philosophies, what they include, what they contain and resulting significant conclusions. It will also cover the foundations of the philosophies. I will include tables and diagrams as MS Word attachments.
[ Here is the attachment Bill provided: Humanism ]
In our country we have seen forces that are causing a paradigm shift from traditional Christian values to what is described as a "secular" society. This shift has occurred over more than a century and appears to be accelerating. The shift can be seen throughout our culture including politics, education, judicial, religion, media, movies, TV, music, literature, family unit, value of life etc. As this shift toward non-traditional values has progressed, the widened cultural gap has caused the two sides to become more and more polarized.
The questions we need to ask are, does this trend have a long term positive effect for individuals, will the effect be detrimental or not have a significant effect? Also, we need to ask, is this the first time a society has undergone such a change or can we learn the effects from history?
I would like to use a "parallel and opposite worldview philosophy diagram" concept to put these questions in perspective and answer them. I believe the wide disparity in our cultural gap is one dimensional and can be described in terns of two parallel and opposite worldview philosophies and their foundational supports. With the philosophies being opposites, only one can be true. In addition, evidences for and against these foundational supports can reveal which of the foundations is true and consequently the truth of the philosophy it supports. In addition, an examination of the effects of each philosophy can further verify the truth and goodness of each.
The philosophies are described as parallel because they both speak to our origins, how we live and our destiny. The philosophies are described as opposite because of the apparent opposition in the documentation and in the reality of the cultural war. Because they are so fundamental to our lives and the beliefs that make us what we really are, it is profoundly important which philosophy we believe, accept, embrace and promote. This means that a high percentage of us believe and are promoting a diabolical lie. It is interesting that even when public debates do occur on this issue, they are usually on the effects level rather than addressing the truth at the support level.
Parallel and Opposite Worldview Philosophies:
The two parallel and opposite worldview philosophies are humanism and Theism. We need to define and describe both philosophies and justify their parallelism, opposition, composition, relationship, cultural war explanations and draw appropriate conclusions.
Theism Definition and Description:
Theism is the easiest to define. It is defined as a belief in the literal interpretation of the themes and concepts in the Bible and in the reality of the beliefs and practice of America's founders. This use of the Theism word would more accurately be described as Christian Theism. We will simply call it Theism.
Theism Composition Justification:
The only people or entities "included" in the Theism philosophy realm are those that completely (100%) agree with Theism. The list in the attached table (Humanism.doc) includes Christian Theists, 100% Theistic Denominational religions, the concept of national sovereignty, the US Constitution, the traditional family and non-oppressive and non-coercive methods. People or entities that add or remove themes or concepts from the Bible are not considered to be Theistic. My justification for this is based upon concepts from the Bible. I feel justified using the Bible for two reasons. One justification for use of the Bible will be made as part of this Parallel and Opposite Worldview Diagram analysis. The other will be made later as part of using the Bible as a theoretical model and comparing it with empirical evidence.
The two Bible quotes which justify eliminating people and entities from the Theism realm are as follows. Matthew 5:18; Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This is referring to the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Revelation 1:1 explains "This Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Consequently, the following quote from Revelation 22:18-19 written by the apostle John can be verified as coming from Jesus Christ. "For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if an man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Since Jesus Christ stated how serious he is about the exact words and concepts in the Old Testament and the book of Revelation, I think we can assume that the same holds for the rest of the New Testament.
Humanism Definition and Description:
Humanism is somewhat more difficult to define. The best documentation that defines it includes the three Humanist Manifestos, other humanist writings, evolutionists writings, the Communist Manifesto and the Communist Rules for Revolution. Although they can have many beliefs and their positions can be written in many different ways, they are all in direct opposition to Biblical themes and concepts. An Illustrative definition of humanism, what it includes and what it contains is attached as Humanism.doc. Another parallel definition includes the actual forces that have caused and are causing our culture paradigm shift. One thing that can link these two is a quote by John J. Dunphy. His award winning essay, The Humanist (1983), illustrates this. "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: A religion of humanity -- utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to carry humanist values into wherever they teach. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
Humanism Composition Justification:
The humanism "included" items in the table are completely in opposition to Theism and in line with humanist doctrine. Consequently, they qualify to be on the "includes" list. The "contained" items are not necessarily completely opposite to Theism. They are "contained" in humanism because they are associated with humanism and are disqualified for Theism because of humanism content.
We can supply some general justification for the inclusion of some of the items under "humanism". The following quote from the American Humanist Association website will help support both "inclusion" and "contains" classifications.
"Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition."
Note the liberal religion acceptance and the other inclusions. Liberal religious have that label because they are not 100% Theistic.
Both the Communist Manifesto and the Communist Rules for Revolution are listed below as concise examples of how humanism is completely opposite to Theism.
Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto – 1848
Communist Rules for Revolution
First we need to differentiate between doctrinal and denominational religions. A doctrinal religion is defined by a Bible or writings upon which a general religion is based. Denominational religions include a variety of groups that differ in how they interpret the general doctrine and also vary in ceremony, rituals, worship etc. These denominational religions usually have an organization, parishioners, meeting locations, budgets etc. We will simply refer to these as "religions".
For Christian religions, we are calling the general doctrinal religion, "Theism". Denominational religions would be Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans etc. The two ways religions can go wrong is if the general doctrine is false or when the general doctrine is true, but the denominational religion corrupts the general doctrine by adding or removing themes and concepts etc or adding rituals. By definition these changes are humanistic in nature. As stated earlier, for now, we are going to assume that Theism is true based upon making several cases for its truth. However, we are not going to assume that any Christian denominational religions or any other religion are true.
Either doctrinal or denominational religions are defined as 0% to 100% Theistic. If Christian religions add humanistic concepts, themes or rituals or remove theistic themes or concepts they become humanistic and are contained under the humanism umbrella. Non-Theistic religions are humanistic by definition since they contain no Theism.
We mentioned earlier that the philosophies are described as parallel because they both speak to our origins, how we live and our destiny. Humanism and Theism are both general doctrinal religions and are religious in nature.
However, with the religion and the religious aspect of humanism being unobvious, the following quote from Lloyd Morain, former editor of “The Humanist” which is the quasi-official journal of the American Humanist Association, is offered.
"Humanism does not include the idea of a God and as such is considered a philosophy rather than a religion. In a way, it is an alternative to all religions. However, whether one looks to humanism as a religion or a philosophy to live by or as a way of life is, we believe, largely a matter of personal temperament and preference. Those caught up by its religious aspects know that it provides a vibrant, satisfying faith. Those who think of it as a philosophy find it both reasonable and adequate."
In addition to the above quotes by John J. Dunphy and Lloyd Morain, the following quotes from the Humanist Manifesto l also support that Humanism is religious.
"Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created"
"Nothing human is alien to the religious."
Consequently, we can support that humanism is a doctrinal religion and is religious in nature. This conclusion supports the parallelism justification since both philosophies are similar regarding religious aspects.
A review of the Humanist Manifesto l and the above communist documentation all indicate that no items or positions are Theistic. Everything is in opposition. The above John I. Dunphy and Lloyd Morain quotes also make it clear that humanism is in direct opposition to Christianity. A comparison of the documents and the realities of what were traditional values vs the new paradigm, shows them to be in direct opposition.
Humanism and Theism Relationship:
One question that might be asked is why shouldn't there be a secularism category between humanism and Theism or why shouldn't humanism be changed to secularism? The normal definition of "secular" is non-religious. However, it has the connotation of "value neutral" as opposed to religious dogma. None of the traditional Christian values have been replaced with a vacuum. All the traditional Christian values have been replaced with opposite values. The word "secular" when associated with humanism gives it a unjustified free pass when it comes to dogma, religious values and an exemption from the establishment clause of the constitution. Consequently, no philosophical secular realm can be justified for humanism or between humanism and Theism.
Cultural War Explanations:
Science vs religion debate:
Scientific humanists have made a case for ridiculing religion in a strawman argument. I am not saying that many denominational religions should be supported or that doctrinal religions should escape scrutiny. However, the debate should be rational and truthful. The type of science that has argued against religious beliefs is natural science (biological evolution science) not classical science. Classical science and religion or Theism have no conflict. In fact several books have been written documenting the fact that basically all classical science was developed by Theists and mostly in a country founded on Theism. One is "The Soul of Science" by Charles Thaxton and Nancy Percy. Natural science (biological evolution science) has been identified as having presuppositions and consequently, by nature, being religious. The following example quotes verify this.
One example included statements by Michael Ruse, one of the world's most productive and prestigious philosophers of biology and a prominent defender of evolution. As a result of Michael's interaction with Berkeley professor Phillip Johnson, Michael Ruse admitted the following in a February 1993 speech at the annual AAAS meeting in Boston. "I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creation trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Ruse explained that those in academia especially "should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which---it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law---but I think that in honesty ... we should recognize this."
Ruse then explained his agreement with Johnson on another point---the quasi-religious role of Darwinism for some scientists. He reviewed the history of science to show that "for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."
Comment - A change in the definition of science took place between the early 1900's and now. Previously, the definition included the word "truth" and did not mention naturalism. Now naturalism is present but not truth. This is consistent with the presuppositions admitted by Ruse. Whether by presuppositions or by redefinition of science, science has found a way to keep anything non-natural off the discussion table.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg. 138).
Yet evolution has not been proved. Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, confesses, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." In fact, it seems that the Theory of Evolution is contrary to established science.
George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous Generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954).
The strawman argument, groups Theism with any and every false doctrinal religion or humanistic Christian religions. Natural science then wraps itself in a cloak of classical science for credibility. This makes the strawman argument a slam dunk. We will show that natural science (biological evolution) has no empirical evidence to support it and all the evidence supports the truth of the Bible. This conclusion leads us the fact that God, Theism, science and truth are all aligned and that Satan, humanism, psudoscience and lies are also aligned. The Bible teaches that Satan is anti-God or in 100% opposition to God. Identifying parallel and opposite philosophies is the key.
It is interesting that with classical science, the world has come to a consensus which would be expected as knowledge has increased. However, in natural science, where values are relevant, a polarized debate persists. This along with the convenient redefinition of science or the presuppositions in natural science testify to a controlling force as a cause.
Significance of Parallel and Opposite Philosophies or Entities:
When philosophies or entities are parallel, it puts them in the same realm at positions on a one dimensional scale. When also opposite, they are at opposite ends of the scale. When only one or two things are opposite it doesn't make us suspect that an underlying cause may be responsible. However, when we have a long list of beliefs or positions that are all opposite for every scale we are hard pressed not to conclude that a cause exists. One way to look at it is with two possible positions available to believe or support, one group's beliefs are exactly opposite on every issue. If the alternative positions were simply random, the chances of happening without a cause are slightly less likely than the following probabilities:
10 beliefs 1:1000
20 beliefs 1:1000000
30 beliefs 1:1000000000
40 beliefs 1:1000000000000
50 beliefs 1:1000000000000000
Statisticians usually use 1:20 or 1:100 as a test for significance of a cause.
Some examples of the number of parallel and opposite beliefs and their odds happening by random chance are as follows:
|Document / Position||Number||Individual Odds||Cumulative Odds|
|Humanist Manifesto l||15||1:32000||1:32000|
|Communist Rules of Revolution||8||1:256||1:8500000000|
|Political Correctness Position||13||1:8000||1:70000000000000|
|Bible, How it is or Should Be||30||1:1000000000||1:70000000000000000000|
The top three can be verified by reading the documents. 13 positions came to mind on which political correctness had a position. These included homosexuality, abortion, relativism, new tolerance, environmentalism, feminism, gun control, capitol punishment, socialism, pluralism, multiculturism and biological evolution. All politically correct positions are opposite to the Bible. One day I was stuck for an extra day in El Paso because flights were not available. I took a Gideon Bible and started at the beginning and made a note of any passage that described "how the world was" or "how it should be". More than 30 consecutive passages, all I reviewed, were the opposite of what is being taught in school and presented in the media.
What Cause Could Explain the Exact Opposite Position on Many and all Issues?:
The three possible scenarios that could exist are as follows:
Humanism makes no claim and has no basis for an existence of absolute truth. In fact, humanism denies absolute truth. If #3 is true, humanism has a contradiction with itself.
Alternatively the Bible claims to be true and explains the existence of humanism and why it has exactly opposite beliefs. It explains that Satan is a rebel against God and is 100% against everything God stands for. It also explains that if we don't believe the truth, he will allow us to believe a lie. Also, it explains that Satan is the current ruler of the earth and that he is the prince of the power of the air.
Another way of analyzing the truth of the Bible and scientific and humanist writings is to look at the truth, age and revision of the documents. The Bible was written about 2000 to 3500 years ago and has never been revised. The first Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933 which makes it about 70 years old. It already has been revised two or more times. Science has had a bad history. Several hundred years ago, science believed that bleeding people was beneficial. Science taught that large rocks fall faster than small rocks not that long ago. Science also believed that the earth was flat. Science has been and is being revised over and over again.
The foundation of Theism is a literal interpretation of the Bible. The foundation of humanism is biological evolution. Without the Bible being upheld as true, Theism has no support and cannot be defended. Without holding up the theory of biological evolution as true, humanism also has no support and cannot be defended. We need to examine the evidences for the truth of both the Bible and Biological evolution next.
After we get some form of agreement on this segment, we will continue with the evidence.