As I mentioned yesterday, humanism is based on human autonomy. Humanist epistemology, then, is a theory of knowledge in which it is believed that man is able to know and understand the world around him based on this autonomy.
Now, there are several serious problems with this that I will look at over the next several days. These are problems we can exploit in our efforts to poke holes in the humanist worldview. First, humanism is a position in which it is believed that an individual independently come to a place of objectivity from which he or she is able to judge the world. Humanists might say things like "let us look at this objectively” or "let us set aside our differences and think about this rationally.” The problem here is that the humanist is unable to view things from an objective standpoint. The minute that a person believes that humans can be objective in-and-of themselves is the moment that he or she becomes biased. Whenever we embrace the notion that we can be objective, we have already become biased. This is a bias that dictates that any viewpoint contrary the humanists own "objective" viewpoint is faulty. So ultimately, one cannot hold that he is objective in-and-of himself and be objective at the same time.
In light of this, one question we might ask a humanist, then, is this: How can you be objective about something if you’re not willing to believe that you cannot be objective? Objectivity from a humanist perspective implies a level of openness towards truth claims that have not been tested by human reason. But what about the possibility that their epistemology (theory of knowledge) is flawed? This line of questioning may be fruitful by the power of the Spirit to help the humanist to begin to see his or her need for a Savior.
While the humanist is unable to be objective, the Christian worldview is the objective standpoint. God’s standpoint is the only objective standpoint and one cannot be objective without God's perspective. Since the Christian worldview is one in which divine revelation is a reality, only the Christian worldview can account for how people are able to view things from an objective standpoint. As Christians we understand that God Himself has given us the God’s-eye view that is necessary for objectivity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steve, this is becoming an exciting series. I look forward to future posts. You did many readers a great favor part 1, by explaining how “humanism” has a broader semantic range than is usually assumed, thus making sense of how Calvin, for instance, could rightly be called a “humanist” (i.e., the former sense).
ReplyDeleteThe issue of objectivity is especially interesting to me. As you know, I’ve been conversing with some satanic humanists of late, and the very opportunity of exploitation, which you encourage here, came up. While the fellow I was conversing with did, in part, recognize that some people are biased (in his mind, especially “fundamentalist Christians”), his remarks presupposed that he had that mythical autonomous objectivity you’re criticizing. Here is a snippet of my challenge to this:
“You rightly observe that we humans have a general propensity to accept “truths” that accommodate and fit our own biased, fore-drawn assumptions. Nevertheless, your remarks wrongly assume that you possess some favored place of cultural/philosophical neutrality and objectivity, by means of which you would have us to believe that your observations about these things are more than just autobiographical commentary. That is, you seem to think that your thoughts correspond and are applicable to a reality that exists independent of your own mind and making. If your position is correct, though, I can’t for the life of me understand how you could believe this...”
The only suggestion that I would add here is that once we have made clear the antithetical nature of our respective epistemological authorities (for us, the Self-attesting Word of God; for them their individual autonomous reason), and while assuming the truth of their authority, for argument’s sake, we shouldn’t begin with objectivity and assume the burden to prove that their position is insufficient to account for it. Rather, we should assume the truth of their presuppositions and begin with epistemological solipsism (the idea that the individual stands in utter isolation of meaningful contact with the external world, other minds, etc.), and offer them the opportunity to argue from that epistemic wasteland to objectivity.
This difference seems subtle in theory, but is has several practical benefits. It takes your advice to exploit to the fullest, shifting the burden of proof. It also has a tremendous rhetorical value, putting the would-be autonomous opponent reeling on their heels. For we are forcing them to a rational demonstration of the very things that they are taking for granted to make our experience sensible (e.g., objectivity). At this point, we’re left with little more to do than point out every instance in which they appeal to those very things during their argument.
This last item, circular reasoning, as you well know, is the cardinal intellectual sin that non-believers enjoy charging to Christians, who in Christ-honoring fidelity, appeal to God’s Word as the final authority. They want to assume objective ethics; we have them begin with moral anarchy. They wish to bring logic to bear on the conversation? Fine; that’s acceptable, after they’ve argued from atomistic chaos (a prime metaphysical presupposition of humanism) to logical constancies. They would like to hold us responsible for our beliefs. Okay, we’ll hear their complaint after they attempt to plod from morass of materialistic determinism to liberty of self-conscious moral agency and intentionality. None of these are a very happy or hopeful prospect for the humanist, are they? If they’re right, they’re wrong.
Thanks again...and keep ‘em coming.