Reviews for Secular Humanism Vs Christianity
Disciple of Spin chapter 1 . 3/20/2013
Inaccurate - superficial - self-deluding. I think that covers it.
Lord Darling chapter 1 . 12/14/2010
Religion creates guilt, self-torture, craven submission and tribalist thinking. THAT's hopeless.
Gabriel D chapter 1 . 1/26/2007
"The outcome of this in a good number of cases is an attempt to disprove evolution and prove God through science. Most people would probably agree that this is flawed thinking. Science and religion are two completely different beasts; to pretend either one is the other is complete fallacy."

I agree with this statement.

" Are we nothing but hairless apes that simply happened to evolve "

Humans never evolved from apes or monkeys. All primates evolved from a common ancestor. I like the wording though. Very fun.

"Are we any more than tiny little glitches of DNA clinging to a small planet in the corner of the universe? Anything more than the feeblest, minute blip in reality, existing without a purpose, goal, or meaning for our fleeting, unimportant lives?

If this was the case, what hope would it bring? What would be the point of even getting out of bed in the morning? To work – why? No-one will remember you after your death, and why does having money help if you have no hope?"

Back in the short time long ago when I was teetering on atheism I always thought that this condition made living life more heroic.

...

I still do, in a way.

" So it can live in an endless cycle of meaningless, purposeless misery and suffering? The moment one simply stops and thinks, reality hits like a ton of bricks.

King Solomon wrote in his book of Ecclesiastes: “Meaningless, meaningless…everything is meaningless!”, and when life is viewed from a purely scientific viewpoint then yes, it certainly is."

If one was to add a little philosophy to science, it would then come about that humankind's first purpose is to make a purpose for humankind. I don't neccisarily hold that idea true, but I just thought I'd throw it in there.

"Psalm 139 talks about how God thinks about each individual more than there are grains of sand on the seashore, and that even before anyone was born, God knew them."

I've always loved that quote.

In closing, a very good report. Well thought out, well executed. Kudo.

Peace easy.
Imalefty chapter 1 . 10/9/2006
great topic; i've been debating over this with myself. though i want to go into science, i really do believe in God, so i don't believe that the two can't coexist. it's really strange to have one without the other.

i really agree with you on all of your points. if there wasn't a God, or some sort of superior being, then what happens after death? it's hard for humans to simply think life just ENDS. even if the thought of everlasting life doesn't give some hope (which i would think it does) it at least provides some sort of comfort that life isn't all worthless.

your first quote could have been paraphrased since it was just a definition. but the second quote was well placed and insightful. love your quotes from the Bible; they really support your "hope" point.

in the last few paragraphs, there were a few too many questions. it broke the flow of the essay a little. the questions were effective, but there could have been less.

anyway, love your essay. wonderful job!

-Lefty
Ienjoycheese chapter 1 . 9/9/2006
*Sigh*I find it depressing that people still believe that life is meaningless without the existence of God. Yeah, we are technically insignificant but why does this have to be such a bleak thought? I get up in the morning because I enjoy life, not because I think there's a purpose to it. If love is nothing but a feature of evolution, then evolution is a beautiful thing.

Furthermore, all morals are subjective and throughout history humans have had countless different moral values. Morals came into existence simply because human life cannot function without them. Societies with no morals die out. I hate the idea that we need to be taught morals from a greater being.

The wonder that is life doesn't have to come from God to be wonderful. In fact, when we don't rely on God for hope then we have to have faith in humanity, and that is where my hope for the future stems from.
Mezmiro chapter 1 . 7/19/2006
Excellent essay. I definately have a different viewpoint on some of this, but overall you have come up with an interesting discussion that's worth reading.

"Science and religion are two completely different beasts; to pretend either one is the other is complete fallacy."

By this statement you seem to be getting quite distracted and you're misunderstanding the point. It's not that science and religion are somehow the same medium for expressing and understanding the universe, it's that we can approach religion in a scientific manner, and science in a religious manner. If I remember correctly, there were many world renowned religious scientists. Does the practice of science deem a man or woman unworthy of believing in God(s), or vice versa?

"Despite all the great leaps forward, science is still like a small child in a dark room, fumbling for a light switch. It is relatively clueless about the real underlying nature of the enormously gigantic universe."

I argue the people who read the Bible and most Scientists don't understand the underlying nature of the universe. This is assuming of course that the universe has some underlying purpose and order to things, and that we're talking about a singular universe and not multiple. Simply put, I doubt anyone who prays, reads the Bible, or fiddles with test tubes understands the nature of the universe. Tell me the underlying nature of the universe in Christianity, and how it contradicts science, and I'll give you golden kudos.

"The thing is, quarks have only ever been found already attached to other quarks, or other particles, never by themselves, and scientists don’t know why this is the case."

A popular phenomenon of particle physics. But I don't get your point by this statement. Are you disagreeing with science merely because an issue in particle physics hasn't been solved yet? The key word there is yet. It's like saying "You haven't solved this math problem, so there's a guaranteed chance you won't solve it in the future." Knowledge of science hasn't petered out, it merely waits for talented individuals to explain the universe in a manner God never managed to do. Say God described the inner-workings of the universe with the Apostles during prayer, do you really think they could understand any of it? How he assembled the correct subatomic particles to create protons, neutrons and electrons, how he assembled these to create hydrogen and oxygen, and he bound these into molecules of water to make the ocean. I argue Science is an extention of the explanations given in the Bible.

"For that matter, can science explain why oxygen burns in air? It can explain how, going into greater and greater detail, but not really why."

Now you're getting deeper into philosophy. Why can sometimes be a moral quandary..what morality is there in burning oxygen?

The thing is, many scientists can't explain why, simply because they don't know how. It's not that science can't come up with an answer, it's that scientists haven't deciphered enough clues to get to this conclusion. Eventually some scientists equate how and why, saying "This is the way it works." I'll be damned if you judge the whole of science on this closed minded answer. Sometimes the best thing to say is "I don't know."

"Science on it’s own cannot provide humanity with hope."

This is where it gets complicated. If God created man in his image, then man would be moral and just as He is, right? In this respect, it would be the job of science to decipher man and create the environment and institutions that further life, happiness, hope and morality, right? We see this with the ongoing research on HIV, Cancer, etc. Even moreso, we see this with the psychological and neurological analysis in humans and animals..both of which are subsets of 'science'. These two sciences show us the best methods of prolonging morality in children and adults, all the while giving them the hope to live a happy, moral lifestyle. There's also Sociology, which is a social science..and you can owe a lot of morality to this subset of science. If I were to make an assumption, I would say that most of the world relies on science, and some of us believe in God, yet we have been doing fine these past hundreds of years..have we not?

"Say, for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution was proven to be a fact. What then? Are we nothing but hairless apes that simply happened to evolve moral values and the ability to think in abstract merely by chance as we crawled out from the primordial soup?"

Are we merely mindless robots clinging to a shred of morality that God bestowed upon us at some point during those seven days? Is the human race so factual and non-probabalistic as to rely on God(s) to have created everything we do, everything we think, and everything we are?

The main problem I have with this essay is that you refer to the human race in the absence of God as an immoral conglomeration of DNA that lacks purpose, hope, and prefers lust over love. Love is relative, as is hope, as is purpose, as is God. My main question is why you don't have much faith in the human race. Humans existed thousands of years before the Bible was ever written. We worshipped different God(s), held different moral codes at times, but we always had a purpose even without God. Purpose is a human defined concept, not a spiritual concept passed down by God so we could understand the universe and His teachings.
Luciferian chapter 1 . 6/12/2006
hey my dear

was this your extended essay? i must say well deserves your top mark!and am very impressed by it :)

and reading over other peoples reviews they seem to share the same view :)

i did like your bit about how religion trys to explain why when science i must admit i found it.. well you said that secular humanists reject religion outwrite, i dont think you really mentioned why this is so...the conflicts it finds with religions. it isnt that religion is rejected becuase it is religion. it is rejected because unanswerable questions are found and contratiction arise. (david hume and sufferng :))

and i think, if i remember bertrand russel agreed with that point when he adressed the issue of children suffering for the sins of thier fathers.

but as always my dear i admire your stand :) and am very proud of your work! :)

but i must add scular humanist do have a purpose as you kinda stated to live moraly and by our morals we have hope for the future, for all to be good, to live happily and equally. this is something religion doesnt always offer. and that is why this review closes with the conlusion that secular humanisnm offers more hope for future generatuins...ok i cant finish that lol :( sorry, just that as a secular humanist i have the hope for future generations to be moraly tolerable for all peoples of the world regardless of lifestyle, colour and creed :)

i have rambelled my dear in our fammed fashion, a meal is most definetly on the cards for us soon :) my phone seems broken, but love you work still!

PLEASE PLEASE have some tempest team back up :) i cant live without i :)

xx Jp
Ryustorm chapter 1 . 6/4/2006
First, i'll very good essay indeeded, add lots of praise. well thought out.

However obviously there are a few points i do not really agree with. personal opinion of course. i believe in God, but do not practice religion. (The sort that accepts every religion to be true,)

this:

It can clone a man, but cannot give him a purpose. Science on it’s own cannot provide humanity with hope.

I am not sure about that. because well to be blunt, you don't see a lot of atheists commiting suicide. People do not need a higher aspiration such as God to find goals, and a meaningful life. debates about the purpose life is extremely old and complicated. But the answer i believe is different for every individual.

Christianity is full of hope: hope for today, hope for eternity, hope for us and for others, hope for forgiveness, and hope for a life of purpose and meaning.

This is also true, christainity is full of hope. but so is science in its own way, hope for a better, to live longer. and perhaps most importantly to save lives.

As for the argument about creation, i have to say 'does is really matter that much?' let people believe what they wish. just be thankful that we are alive on this earth.

Enjoyed your essay very much!
Andre' Betita chapter 1 . 5/30/2006
Impressive command of detail. Nice work here. But I would just like to add something...

I believe that secular humanism, the theory of evolution, and all things scientific have the same purpose as religion: to explain the "how" and even the "why". It's just that religion is the simplified and summarized form that God had already handed on to us. Whileas we still busy ourselves with science, taking the longer route to getting the answers.

For example...

This is how science would explain one thing: Studies have led to the findings that the planet used to have an additional layer - a water canopy - of atmosphere around it. This water canopy eventually collapsed unto the surface of the Earth, causing the rise of water levels world-wide. This collapse wiped out majority of life on Earth. Also, the absence of one of Earth's former layers of atmosphere allowed the radiation "Potassium40" to penetrate the planet and contribute to the aging process, speeding up the life cycle on Earth and shortening the duration of time that its inhabitants live.

This is how religion would explain the same thing: There was a global flood during the time of Noah that wiped out most living creatures on Earth (Genesis 7:17-24). And then God decided to shorten the limit of human life from over 900 years to a little over 120 years (Genesis 6:3).

The bottom line is, God already explained it all to us, in simplified form, through religion. We needn't bother ourselves with ramblings and ramblings that continually prove and disprove and re-prove and re-disprove theories of science. Because, it is true that science might possibly give all the answers one day. But why wait for science to do that? God had already done it for us.
Darkflare chapter 1 . 5/19/2006
I understand your point of view, but there are some people who find the idea of everything they do being watched over and controlled by a cosmic being as bleak as one of having no purpose at all. How must it feel to know that, though you were created as a being with free will, there is only so far that it can go? That no matter what you do, ultimately where your life goes is not yours to decide? If God has a plan, then he must have planned for some humans to be damned and others to be saved. In my opinion this is one of the big contradictions in Christianity; the idea of free will against the theory that everything, everywhere, is just a little piece of God's Big Plan.

Science is important in explaining the how of things. Yes, there are some things it can't explain, and that's partly why religion exists in the first place (in my opinion) but there are also things that religion can't explain away. What's God? Why does God care? Is it because God's infinitely good or because it's bored? (Yes, it as opposed to he or she, and no capital either. I believe in a god, but I don't think it really believes in me.)

Personally, I believe that Secular Humanism has an important place in our future, but so does religion; it'd be very unwise to try and stamp out either.

It's a well-written essay, though, and your point of view comes across well ) Kudos.
samwise606 chapter 1 . 4/30/2006
I really enjoyed this. It's good to see someone combatting the warped ideas of only science and evolution and such. It's true what you said; science cannot explain everything, which is why we should rely on God. In one of the Psalms (though I forget which one) David says that if God was not, we might as well give up and die. A good point on both his part and yours. You also used a few of my favorite verses, Romans 8:28 and Jeremiah 29:11. I like those. A very true point and well-written work. It's going on my Favorite Stories list. God bless!-Samwise
No Trust chapter 1 . 4/30/2006
You are correct that science has nothing to say about ‘should’; for science to be useful it must be value free, and it must assume a mechanistic materialism, because scientific fields study mechanical workings of reality. That doesn’t mean scientists are value free (then they would be vegetables) and it doesn’t mean scientists should then assume metaphysical materialism more broadly, and it absolutely does not mean that science is the only useful tool for forming useful knowledge and understanding of the world.

“For Secular Humanists, morality is all relative…”

I don’t think that’s true. Secular humanism is a particular moral system. Certainly they hold some values to be morally inconsequential, but then so does Christianity (AFAIK, mainstream Christians don’t consider it immoral to wear blue clothes instead of black or white or whatever).

“On the other side of the battle field, some Christians have started up a school of thought called Intelligent Design, attempting to combat the theory of Evolution. Intelligent Design…”

Not all ID’ers are Christians, and ID doesn’t deny evolution per se.

“Science and religion are two completely different beasts; to pretend either one is the other is complete fallacy.”

The sentiment is correct but this is an imprecise way of saying it.

“For that matter, can science explain why oxygen burns in air? It can explain how, going into greater and greater detail, but not really why. Eventually the answer given will be “Because it just does”, a singularly unsatisfying conclusion.”

Nevertheless, a conclusion that is inescapable with or without a god. Why does God do what he does? Because he wants to. Why does he want to? Because he just does. See?

“If this was the case, what hope would it bring? What would be the point of even getting out of bed in the morning? To work – why? No-one will remember you after your death, and why does having money help if you have no hope?”

Why would you care if anyone remembers you after you’re dead? And, hope for what?

“To provide for a family? If evolution is true then all love is, is lust mixed with a need to carry on the species, but if life has no purpose, what is even the point of helping humanity survive?”

Even if it was true that love is merely lust mixed with a need to carry on the species (a philosophical assertion that has nothing to do with science), that wouldn’t make it any less real a motivation. And, ‘what is the point’ of serving God or trying to get into heaven or whatever? What purpose is there to such an endeavor? Either you want to or you don’t. There is no reason why you ‘should’ want to; rationality applies to actions’ aptitude at achieving desired ends, it’s incoherent to try to take rationality back logically prior to desires themselves.

“Christianity, however, views the world differently. This religion believes that every single person is created unique and for a special purpose. No-one and nothing is an accident, it is all part of God’s plan.”

Right, so the people who reject Christianity for secular humanism are only carrying out their part in God’s plan.
SSSSS chapter 1 . 4/28/2006
Very good essay. Love how you use quotes and stats to justify your reasonings. I agree with a number of your views, and there are some that I do not agree with. One of the only things that I disagree with are the complete segregation of science and religion, and I feel that, rather than comparing science to Christianity, it would be better to compare science to religion in general-a single religion is a bit too narrow. I would write about a number of things, but that would be turning this review into an essay of my own. Even still, you did a very good job with this essay, and I can tell that you put much time, or at least effort, into writing this.

Tschau,Sam
iknowthethirdthingaboutpoetry chapter 1 . 4/28/2006
I never like an essay that starts with a definition of a word. It's too uncreative.

Science and religion don't have to conflict. As you've sort of said, science explains the hows while religion the whys. I always find both science and religion interesting anyway. Between Big Bang and Creationism, I'm also considering the theory that we humans were actually invented and sent here by highly capable aliens in the galaxy far, far away, who therefore now like to go around in their little UFOs kidnapping people.
Zspete chapter 1 . 4/28/2006
I would disagree that science and religion have to be separate. Have you ever read Darwin's Black Box? Acurate science shows the truth. It's true that we can't conclusivly prove that God as we know him from the Bible exists but creation does point to an intelligent designer. We also can't just look to Christianity because it offers us a purpose in life that Secular Humanism dosn't. We don't serve God becasue we need a purpose in life, or for any other worldly reasons. We are to serve God because our purpose is to glorify Him.
21 | Page 1 2 Next »