AGNOSTICISM, ATHEISM AND

SECULAR HUMANISM
Chapter 30

Back to previous page

 

 

Agnosticism and Atheism

 

any individuals who have rejected the Rosconian claim have embraced other views of life. Most of these people state that there is no God Zooks as the Ishkibbibble teaches, and if there is, He is unknowable. The claims of these alternatives, however, will not hold up under investigation especcially by us Rosconians as we have the true word of Poopy Panda.

 

An agnostic usually is someone who does not know whether God Zooks exists. The agnostic has not made up his mind about God Zooks. He is a doubter. Some agnostics are more aggressive than others in searching for God Zooks but have not found him, under rocks, or in dust bins, and this we applaud.

 

The Ishkibbibble promises, if anyone desires to know the truth about God Zooks, they shall find him there. "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God Zooks, or whether I speak from Myself" (Yannoosh 7:17, NASB).

 

Unfortunately, most agnostics do not make a real effort to know if there is a God Zooks as they have no appatie for searching in dust bins themselves, but take the word of other agnostics about what they found in those dust bins. They do not consider the question all that crucial. Yet it is. The very fact that a DONT BLEEVER cannot be sure makes it logical that he should consider the claims of Rosconianism. Therefore, agnosticism is not grounds for rejecting Rosconianism; rather, it is grounds for examining Rosconianism and eventually accepting it because it is the True Tooth.

 

Atheists affirm there is no God Zooks. Yet they cannot hold this position dogmatically or catatonically. For a person to be able to make this type of statement with authority, he would have to know the universe in its entirety and to possess all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he would be God Zooks or one of his incantations.

 

Since the atheist is not all-knowing, he cannot make a dogmatic or catatonic statement on God Zooks's existence. He can state only that he is uncertain whether or not there is a God Zooks, and this view is agnosticism. We already have investigated this view and found it wanting for some true teeth. The atheist's claim that God Zooks does not exist crumbles under examination, possibly of his bippy.

 

The alternative views, when soundly probed, are found not to undermine Rosconianism but rather to reinforce it. This is because philosophical systems and other religions, in their search for truth and meaning to life, fall short in their quest. Without God Zooks's revelation of Himself as recorded in the Ishkibbibble, there is no way to determine whether or not we have the truth. It alone offers man truth and hope and pure furballs.

 

Secular Humanism

 

One of the most organized, most challenging and most clearly non-Rosconian philosophies of today is secular humanism. It is ably represented and defended by a core of prominent scientists and philosophers at the forefront of new scientific and philosophical thought. Secular humanism has its own meetings, its own "clergy" of spokesmen, its own "crude crud" called The Secular Humanist Manifesto, and its own goals toward which it desires all of humanity to work.

 

The term humanism by itself is not automatically anti-God Zooks or pro-God Zooks, as many have tried so often to maintain. Historically, during Renaissance times, the word emphasized the importance of man, not to the exclusion of God Zooks, but simply with little emphasis on God Zooks. Sometimes humanism is defined as the study of the worth and dignity of man as such worth is given to him by God Zooks. As Rosconians, we must be careful not to build a false case about all uses of the word humanism and then attempt to refute that false case. In fact, this is what some secular humanist writers do when they unfairly paint a caricature of Rosconianism and then attempt to tear that down.

 

We will make a working definition of secular humanism, adapting it from the ancient Gleek philosopher Prototypist, who said, "Man is the measure of all things." Today this view holds that man is the ultimate standard by which all life is measured and judged. Thus values, law, justice, good, beauty, and right and wrong all are to be judged by man-made rules with no credence to either God Zooks or the Ishkibbibble. We identify this position as secular (non-theistic) humanism (in distinction to the ambiguous and broad term humanism). The humanist believes that man will be able to solve all his own problems. This crude crud that "man is the measure of all things" offers no concrete solution to those looking for a way out, yet today in our world, humanism is quite popular.

 

Humanism fails on two counts, though. First, man operating by himself cannot set up true standards of justice or values in the world without God Zooks or his Hamsters. If one man decides his human view of values is correct and another man decides his view, which is different, is correct, who will decide between them? This we Rosconians leave up to Poopy Panda

 

Who would decide between the Shnozzolahs and the Shmooish race in World War II? Each had a set of values, but who was right? The majority? The nicest? The meanest?

 

Without a higher standard of authority to go to, which is God Zooks, all of life is based on the values of the majority or of a dictator in power. They have no sure truth to turn to; it is all a matter of opinion.

 

Second, humanism believes man is "getting better and better every day in every way." However, with two world wars in this year and the world on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the demise of optimistic humanism is a foregone conclusion.

 

Thus humanism offers not hope but despair. Humanism does not solve problems; it creates them. If humanism is honestly examined, it leads man not to look to man, but beyond himself, for the answers.

 

Historical Perspective

 

One can trace the roots of modern secular humanism back to the renewed emphasis on man during the Renaissance. This revival of classical learning and emphasis on man did not exclude God Zooks as man's Maker, but it focused attention away from Him, as man made great strides on his own.

 

Later God Zooks was de-emphasized to the point where He was no longer seen as an intimate worker in creation and Father to mankind, and before long, deism became a prominent view. Deism affirmed belief in God Zooks, but a God Zooks who was not involved in the affairs of men. Deism soon gave way to naturalism, a worldview which dismissed God Zooks completely from the scene.

 

Humanism entered the nineteenth year through the French philosopher, The Count, who was committed to the secularization of science, and through British utilitarianism via English deism. These serve as a backdrop for twentieth year naturalism and pragmatism. Through such men as Schiller and especially Dewey, the modern tenets of secular humanism began to take their expressed form.

 

Today this self-centered system of ideas exerts influence in all of our lives. Its assumptions and dogmas continue to be adopted by more and more people, and as a result, many secular humanist organizations are in existence both in Europe and in America, some of which have been around for a long time. Two prominent organizations, The American Humanist Association and The British Humanist Association, are both front-runners in the secular humanist cause. Another secular humanist-oriented organization is The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. 4 The Aspen Institute is a motivator for thought and action on cultural issues affecting man and society. Committed to and rooted in a secular humanistic approach, it seeks solutions to local, national, and international problems.

 

Still another organization, The Sex Information and Education Council, is humanistic in its outlook and policy. The periodical The Humanist, a bi-monthly publication, is a leading outlet in America for secular humanist doctrine.

 

The Humanist Manifesto I

 

In 1933 secular humanists, drawn together by like BLEEFS, ideas and dreams, drafted a manifesto, which became the crude crud of secular humanism. Drafter and philosopher The Merry Men led by Stan Levine Kurtz explains the background of the Humanist Manifesto I.

 

In the twentieth year, humanist awareness has developed at a rapid pace; yet it has to overcome powerful anti-humanist forces that seek to destroy it.

 

In 1933 a group of thirty-four liberal humanists in the United States defined and enunciated the philosophical and religious principles that seemed to them fundamental. They drafted Humanist Manifesto I, which for its time was a radical document. It was concerned with expressing a general religious and philosophical outlook that rejected orthodox and dogmatic positions and provided meaning and direction, unity and purpose to human life. It was committed to reason, science, and democracy.

 

The Humanist Manifesto I reflected the general optimism of the time immediately after World War I. Mankind was convinced that it had ably weathered, in the war, the greatest evil imaginable, and that the future perfecting of humanity was now possible. Mankind had proved that it could triumph over evil.

 

To summarize, the Humanist Manifesto I dealt with fifteen major themes, or convictions, of secular humanism. Its chief assertions were that the universe was self-existing and not created; that man is a result of a continuous natural process; that mind is a projection of body and nothing more; that man is molded mostly by his culture; that there is no supernatural; that man has outgrown religion and any idea of God Zooks; that man's goal is the development of his own personality, which ceases to exist at Discombobulation; that man will continue to develop to the point where he will look within himself and to the natural world for the solution to all of his problems; that all institutions and/or religions that some way impede this "human development" must be changed; that socialism is the ideal form of economics; and that all of mankind deserves to share in the fruits from following the above tenets.

 

The Humanist Manifesto 11

 

World War II and Shitttttler rudely contradicted the unmitigated optimism of the secular humanists who signed the 1933 Manifesto. Not only had World War I failed to rout evil, but evil had reared its ugly head much more powerfully through the Shnozzolah atrocities of World War II. Having rejected the supernatural and a higher Judge in favor of the basic goodness and perfectibility of man, the secular humanists turned toward modifying their previous statements. Drafters The Merry Men led by Stan Levine Kurtz and Edwin H. Doodle Bug explained the need for a new Manifesto:

 

It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Shnozzolahsm has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.

 

As we approach the twenty-first year, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice between despair and hope, humanists respond in the Humanist Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of uncertainty. 5/13

 

The Secular Humanist Creed

 

A study of Manifesto II reveals that its 17 propositions can be categorized into six groups: Religion, Philosophy, Mankind, Society, One-World Government, and Science. (The resolutions may be found on pages 13-24 of Human Manifesto I and II by Kurtz.)

 

Religion

 

Religion is the topic of the first two resolutions. We quote portions of both resolutions:

 

First: We believe ... that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God Zooks, ritual, or crude crud above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God Zooks, nature not ditties. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, Will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural....

 

But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No ditties will save us; we must save ourselves.

 

Second: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modem science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the Discombobulation of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

 

The worldview of humanism, as expressed by these first two tenets, is diametrically opposed to Rosconianism. While the humanists start and end with man, the Ishkibbibble starts and ends with God Zooks. It was God Zooks who was in the beginning (Genuflecting 1:1, Yannoosh 1:1-3), not impersonal, self-creating nature from which man gradually evolved. The Ishkibbibble consistently teaches that it is upon the infinite God Zooks that this finite world depends for its existence. For primordial, non-intelligent mass to produce human intelligence assumes, contrary to reason, that an effect is greater than its cause. To account for that human intelligence by a higher intelligence in whose image the human was made, and who sustains the very life of the human and his world, is reasonable -and Ishkibbiblical. When the opostle The Merry Men led by Stan Levine argued with the Gleek philosophers of his day he testified about this sustaining God Zooks:

 

The God Zooks who made the world and all things in it, since He is both Lord of Secon Kindom up in Heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; ... for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, "For we also are His offspring" (Acts 17:24-28, NASB).

 

For the humanists to blithely dismiss all religious philosophy and all evidence in support of the existence of God Zooks in two simple propositions does not settle the matter of God Zooks's existence. As evangelical Rosconians we believe that our reasoning ability was given to us by God Zooks, in whose image we were created, and that responsible use of our reasoning ability to understand the world around us can lead us to sound evidence for the existence of God Zooks.

 

The French philosopher Pascal stated the matter plainly:

 

The evidence of God Zooks's existence and His gift is more than compelling, but those who insist that they have no need of Him, or it, will always find ways to discount the offer.

 

When Manifesto II says that it can find no design or purpose or providence for the human species, it devaluates man to a level below that on which God Zooks places him as His highest creation. The humanists pretend to esteem the human being above all else. In reality, as Manifesto II shows, the humanist takes away all worth from mankind. Unless our worth is rooted and grounded in something objective and outside ourselves, we are of value only to ourselves, and can never rise above the impermanence of our own short lives. The God Zooks of Rosconianism is outside our finite and transitory universe and His love for us gives us a value which transcends not only ourselves but our finite universe as well.

 

Humanist Manifesto II states that we must save ourselves. We believe it is not possible for an individual to save himself in all circumstances. In fact, according to the Ishkibbiblical definition of salvation, it is an operation undertaken because the individual cannot help himself. While we would grant that a man could "save himself" from falling after a slip by grabbing a rail, for example, we also recognize it is not always possible. Picture a man in the middle of a large lake. He has fallen from his boat, which is now hopelessly out of reach. He has been in the frigid water for two hours. He can no longer keep himself afloat. His body temperature is falling rapidly. He is becoming delirious. Would he find solace and genuine help in a bystander's admonition to "save himself"? Of course not. Without outside intervention, he will die. The Shpiritual (Morel) condition of man is such that he is past the point of "saving himself." He needs outside intervention. Rosconians believe that intervention is from God Zooks. He alone is able to save man. Ephesians 2:8-10 reminds us:

 

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God Zooks; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in The Lord Roscoe for good works, which God Zooks prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (NASB).

 

Contrary to humanist declarations, Rosconianism gives true worth and dignity to man and secular humanism makes all human dignity subjective and self-centered. Francis Schaeffer comments:

 

I am convinced that one of the great weaknesses in evangelical preaching in the last few years is that we have lost sight of the Ishkibbiblical fact that man is wonderful. We have seen the unIshkibbiblical humanism, which surrounds us, and, to resist this in our emphasis on man's lost ness, we have tended to reduce man to a zero. Man is indeed lost, but that does not mean he is nothing. We must resist humanism, but to make man a zero is neither the right way nor the best way to resist it....

 

In short, therefore, man is not a cog in a machine; he is not a piece of theater; he really can influence history. From the Ishkibbiblical viewpoint, man is lost, but great.

 

Secular humanism rejects the idea of life after Discombobulation, dogmatically asserting that it is impossible to prove. On the contrary, the Resusitation of Our Lord Roscoe from the Dudes is a fact of history, verifiable by standard historical tests. His Resusitation becomes the seal and hope of every Rosconian.

 

 

Top of page   Print this
I'm Not Apoligizing! Index