The Rise of Secularism

Transcript The Rise of Secularism

Kevin Harris: Thank you for joining us on the Reasonable Faith podcast. Kevin Harris here with Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig, there are two things we're going to talk about today, and I just want to offer this disclaimer at the front. One thing that we don't do at Reasonable Faith: we don't curse the darkness without lighting a candle. We want to honestly take a look at spiritual trends and some things like that and offer evaluation. And I do decry these two things that are happening here that we're going to discuss, and I know you do as well. One would be the largest national multimedia ad campaign ever by a godless organization – The Humanist Organization – and I've been seeing the ads, the billboards and the T.V. commercials. That's one of the things that we're going to look at, and that is a more aggressive atheistic, naturalistic, or humanist campaign. You've been observing this, too, and the billboard wars.

Dr. Craig: Right. The things that I've seen have not been by the American Humanist Association but by the American Atheists, which is a different group. These groups are all contending with each other for leadership in the sort of free thought sub-culture. And the billboards that I saw featured a silhouette of the three wise men on camels Christmas scene, and then the caption is “you know it's a myth” and “have a reasonable season this year” or something, rather than believing in this myth that is portrayed on the billboard.

Kevin Harris: The T.V. ads by the humanist groups juxtapose notable humanist quotes with passages from religious texts, according to the press release here, including the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. The ads then ask the audience to consider humanism, and you can go to considerhumanism.org. They're well done from a production standpoint, I have to observe. One example is the following pairing: You see a man come on with the caption underneath, the Bible, and quotes “a women should learn in quietness and full submission, I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Paul and 1 Timothy 2. Then humanism suddenly comes up and says “the rights of men and women should be equal and sacred. Marriage should be a perfect partnership”—Robert G. Ingersoll, and a letter dated April 13, 1878. So when you look at that you're thinking, boy, the second one does make a whole lot more sense, and is a lot more modern and free to women, and I'm not going to believe this ancient text that denies women freedom to teach, and treats them harshly, and so on. And this goes on and on. Old Testament verses contrasted with Albert Einstein that says, “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, who's purposes are modeled after our own, a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.” Well, first off, Bill, do you have any comment on what Paul is talking about there when he's saying I do not permit a women to preach?

Dr. Craig: I think it's clear that that text is taken out of context. Obviously Paul is not saying there he wouldn’t allow for women to be leaders in business or in finance or to teach at the university or teach elementary school, or something of that sort. What Paul is talking about there is the teaching pastorate in the local church. And he's saying that in the context of the local church the teaching function should be by the male elders, and not by the women. Now, that may be politically incorrect, but it isn't the sort of anti-humanistic sentiment that the ad portrays. It's not trying to restrict the role of women in society at large. It's just saying that within the context of teaching Christian doctrine, teaching theology in the context of the local church, that this is a role that's to be reserved for men. And of course Christianity and Paul believe in the equal rights and dignity of men and women before God. Paul says in Christ there is neither male nor female, men and women are equal recipients of God's grace.

Kevin Harris: Now, why didn't they use that quote? [laughter]

Dr. Craig: Yeah, they could've used those quotations – couldn't they? – but it was obvious what they were trying to do. But Paul thinks that in the context of the local church men and women have different roles, and that isn't inconsistent with the equality of men and women before God or their equal rights. So I think that the pairing with the Ingersoll quotation is very unfortunate because it gives the impression that Paul is talking about some sort of marriage relationship in which a woman is not allowed to speak up in the marriage relationship, [1] and she's to be dominated by her husband and so forth, and that's not at all the context of that passage.

Kevin Harris: Isn't that funny. That is dishonest.

Dr. Craig: Yeah.

Kevin Harris: That's propaganda.

Dr. Craig: What does the Ingersoll quote say, again?

Kevin Harris: Ingersoll says, “the rights of men and women should be equal and sacred. Marriage should be a perfect partnership.”

Dr. Craig: Yeah, see, it's contrasting it with marriage, and that's not what the verse is about.

Kevin Harris: Once again, there are going to be many Christians who are going to just say, 'ah, come on,' realizing this is taken out of context. And even young Christians can go to any reputable commentary and look that up and get the cultural context and also the context of a hierarchy of authority that God has in mind that Paul expresses, and so on, on the way we're wired, and see that this is nonsense. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who may be on the fence who would say, “Huh, I didn't know the Bible was a male chauvinist pig book.”

Dr. Craig: [laughter] Right, it's going to create a very prejudicial impression. But I think the more fundamental point to make is that the contrast here is simply false, Kevin. What humanism affirms is the intrinsic value of human beings in an atheistic universe. And I don't see any reason to think that that's true. So that's the difficulty—what reason is there to think that humanism is the truth? The value of human beings is a Christian affirmation. Modern humanism is parasitic upon a Western Christian tradition. And what it's done is simply removed God from the picture but try to retain the inherent dignity and worth of human beings in a godless universe. And my argument would be that once you remove God from the picture there is no longer any basis to affirming the intrinsic value of human beings—we just become animals. So I see humanism as inadequate not because it has the wrong values. On the contrary, Christianity is a humanism in the sense that we affirm the God-given inalienable rights of human persons created in the image of God. So humanism isn't wrong because of the set of values it has. It's wrong because it has given up the explanatory foundation for the intrinsic value of human beings. And, see, all of that is completely left aside in these sort of ads. The ads are trying to polarize Christian values against humanistic values, which I don't think is the real issue because we both affirm humanism. We affirm theistic humanism, they affirm secular humanism, and that's the real issue. It's not the humanism, it's the theistic verses the secular—that's where the debate lies.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, and, again, I think this is a case of hijacking a term because, like you pointed out, Bill, there are many humanistic qualities about the Christian faith. Humanism being holding to things like the sacredness of life and that human beings are of value, and so on. So the name here is not secular humanism, it's been broadened out to just humanism.

Dr. Craig: Right, and that's misleading. It should be secular humanism because we all affirm the intrinsic value of human beings. The question is which worldview gives you the firm foundation for the affirmation of that value? And notice you could contrast other supposed value statements. For example, you talked about the sanctity of human life. Why should Robert Ingersoll or Albert Einstein be allowed to speak for humanists here? What is the creed of humanism? I'm not aware that there is one. So I would think that a consistent humanism ought to be ardently pro-life. It's, I think, medically and biologically indisputable that a developing fetus is a human being in the early stages of his development, and therefore a consistent humanist, I think, should be a pro-life person—someone who is against abortion on demand.

Kevin Harris: But they're not.

Dr. Craig: Well, that's what I was going to say. You can find probably all kinds of statements by supposed humanists advocating pro-choice positions, which raises the question, as I say, well, then, who speaks for humanism? By what right do they have the authority to pair these quotations against these biblical quotations? I think you could find humanists that affirm all kinds of things, and I don't see any reason to invest those people with authority to speak for humanism.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, when you say there's no creed for humanism . . .

Dr. Craig: . . . about moral values, I mean.

Kevin Harris: There has been some attempts, I guess. I'm thinking of The Humanist Manifesto I and The Humanist Manifesto II. [2] I don't know if that would necessarily serve as creeds, but it would certainly encapsulate maybe some of the philosophy of this so-called humanism.

Dr. Craig: Sure.

Kevin Harris: In fact it would probably reject creeds in saying, “We're free thinkers.”

Dr. Craig: Right, they reject authority or any sort of human attempt to impose statements authoritatively. So I just wonder, then . . . you see, the ad compares the biblical statements to supposedly humanist statements. But humanists differ in their opinions about these issues. So why should we oppose these quotations to the biblical quotations? If you did it on, say, pro-life issues you could find humanists who would say things that would be very anti-humanistic, I think, about how it's alright to destroy human lives.

Kevin Harris: Listen to what the press release says. It says: “All quotes from religious texts were checked by Scripture scholars to ensure accuracy, context, and proper translation.”

Dr. Craig: Yeah, isn't that funny? I mean, that is pure bloviating. It is an attempt to sound like they've been so careful in their biblical exegesis, when very clearly that's not the case.

Kevin Harris: No, it's really not.

Dr. Craig: These texts are selected for their explosive and politically incorrect qualities.

Kevin Harris: The release goes on to say, “We want to reach people in every corner of the U.S., from all walks of life, to raise the flag for humanists and show others that they have more in common with us than with biblical literalists. It's important that people recognize that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America. Although religious texts can teach good lessons, they also advocate fear, intolerance, hate, and ignorance. It's time for all moderate people to stand up against conservative religion's claim on a moral monopoly.” Once again we have an attack, a reaction, a raising against certain fundamentalists, the religious right, certain aggressive religious groups, Muslim fundamentalists, terrorists. I think, Bill, as opposed to the Christian faith, their gripe is with the now defunct Moral Majority vestiges. That's what it seems like.

Dr. Craig: Well, perhaps, Kevin, although I think probably a lot of biblical morality would be exceedingly unpopular in secular American society today. Think of co-habitation or reserving sexual intimacy for the bond of marriage. That's hugely unpopular in American society today, to which I say, “So what?” Who says that a consistent humanist is going to be an advocate of sex outside of marriage? I could think that a consistent humanist position would be the biblical position, that sex ought to be reserved for the security and bond of marriage, and that outside of monogamous marriage sexual intimacy should not be engaged in. And I think that's a perfectly legitimate humanist perspective.

Kevin Harris: Yeah, and there's even science to back that up, and sociological studies to back that up.

Dr. Craig: Oh, yeah. The most sexually fulfilled people have been shown to be faithful monogamous married people. So this raises, again, this question, well, who speaks for humanism here? Why think that these positions that they advocate are the correct humanist positions? So the issue isn't humanism. We all want to affirm the intrinsic value of human beings, and to develop an ethic that will be consistent with the affirmation that human beings are created with certain inalienable rights, and then we need to work out such an ethic. But the real point of difference between us and the secular humanists is going to be on the foundation for those values. Can an atheistic worldview furnish an adequate explanatory foundation for the intrinsic value of human beings, or is theism better at providing the ontological foundations for the affirmation of human value we both want to make?

Kevin Harris: This humanist organization anticipated, I think, what most of us who are followers of Christ would say. We'd say, “Okay, you don't like the religious right. Okay, you don't like the vestiges of the Moral Majority; you don't like religious fundamentalists, and so on. Look to Jesus, then. He is our model. Look to the claims of Christ.” And that would be appropriate, but they anticipated that because they have a quote up from Jesus: unless one hates his mother and father and brother and sister, he cannot be a follower of mine.

Dr. Craig: Oh my. So much for consulting the scriptural exegetes to make sure you're quoting it accurately in historical context, and all that.

Kevin Harris: Then it had a humanist quote up, how you're to embrace your family and love your family.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, that's so dishonest, Kevin. Anyone who knows about Semitic culture knows that these sorts of hyperbolic contrasts are often drawn to make a point. [3] But Jesus obviously taught that one should honor one's father and mother (that's one of the commandments given by Moses), and that we should love not only members of our family, but our neighbor and even our enemies—that's the ethic of Jesus. So this is just Scripture twisting that's very dishonest.

Kevin Harris: Once again, there you go. This butts into another thing we'll look at quickly, and that is an article, Bill, from the Charleston Gazette from James Hott, a huge new story that is barely noticed, and that is that secularism is very quietly invading America and undermining the religious heritage of America. Now, it seems that James Hott, who wrote this article, is very happy about that. But he's saying that the evidence is that we're going the same way as Europe. Some polls that show more people consider themselves 'nones' than ever before.

Dr. Craig: When asked about their religious affiliation, they put “none.”

Kevin Harris: None, or don't know, and that that's doubled in the last ten years, and is on the rise. Five percent more say “don't know.”

Dr. Craig: Yeah, actually that's in the last eighteen years, according to the article. From 1990 this group was eight percent, and then in 2008 fifteen percent.

Kevin Harris: Various polls found a strong increase in the number of Americans, especially young people, who answered 'none' when asked their religion. In 1990 this group had climbed to eight percent. By 2008 this group had doubled to fifteen percent plus another five percent answered 'don't know.' This implies that around forty-five million U.S. adults today lack church affiliation. In Hawaii more than half say they have no church connection – more than half. There are mainline losses in mainline churches, some of the mainline denominations. And, yeah, we've kind of been aware of this for a while, but, Bill, this all comes down to a rising secularism. What is your response?

Dr. Craig: Well, a couple of things. First, I think the evidence isn't as unequivocal as what he claims. According to what I have read many of the respondents in these Pew religion surveys, when they say 'none' in terms of their religious view point, they mean they're not a member of any denomination. They mean “We're not a Baptist. We're not Presbyterian. We're not United Methodist.” But it doesn’t mean that they embrace agnosticism or atheism. In fact those have remained relatively flat in terms of people's religious affiliation.

Kevin Harris: They could be a member of a big nondenominational church.

Dr. Craig: They could be. And so one has to be careful about how you interpret these surveys. When people respond 'none' it may just indicate declining denominationalism, as opposed to a rise in secularism, which is, I think, not a bad thing, to have less denominationalism and divisiveness. And as for the mainline losses, that is certainly true. The mainline Protestant denominations have been in free fall for a number of years. And the reason for that is because they've abandoned the preaching of the Gospel in favor of a thinly disguised humanism. And people won't get up in the cold and the dark on a Sunday morning to go and worship a God that isn't really there. You don't need God in order to live out a life of humanism. So it's not at all surprising that this collapse in the mainline denominations should have taken place. Similarly his third point of evidence is Catholic losses, and, again, to the extent that the Catholic Church has not been evangelical in its proclamation it's no surprise that nominalism and loss of members characterizes it. He mentions, finally, fading taboos, pointing out that our society has gotten a lot more secular. For example, couples living together now instead of marrying, or the rising gambling, and other sorts of activities that are now acceptable. And that does seem to me to be persuasive evidence that at least people are not living lifestyles that are consistent with Christian morality. Though, from what I've heard, from what I've read, many of these activities are engaged in by Christians who claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ but who's lives, sadly, differ very little from those of unbelievers. So it's not altogether clear to me that this represents this huge wave of secularism that he thinks that it does. Nevertheless, having said that, I don't want us to be lulled into a false sense of security. I am very concerned that we not go down the same route as Europe and Canada, but that the United States experience a revival of spirituality and of Christian faith. [4] And I'm doing my best to work toward that end.

Kevin Harris: Again, rather than curse the darkness we want to light a candle, the candle of the Gospel, the candle of the good news of Jesus, intellectual grounds for that and the reasons for it, the reasonable faith that we can all . . .

Dr. Craig: Exactly. I think that probably the most potent counter-blast to this rise in secularism is the renaissance in Christian philosophy that has been going on over the last fifty years, since the late 1960s. And my hope is that as this renaissance continues and the leavening effect of increased visibility of Christians in the realm of philosophy continues, that this will begin to affect every area of the university, because every area of the university has a philosophical component to it—philosophy of education, philosophy of science, philosophy of law, and so forth. And if we can have Christianity restored to a respected place at the table at the university, this is going to affect American culture because the university is the most important institution shaping Western culture today. So I am optimistic for the future because of what I see happening in philosophy. I see it also happening in New Testament studies with the renewed quest of the historical Jesus that is much, much more sympathetic to the historical reliability of the Gospels than, say, the late nineteenth century. And I see it happening in science. I think modern physics is open to God in a way that has been heretofore undreamt of in science, when compared, again, with the late nineteenth century. So there are signs of good optimism in the intelligentsia of a resurgence of Christian faith, and the hope is that this can be translated now to the average man in the street, to help Christianity become a formative effect in our culture at large.

Kevin Harris: Bill, why don't we all just give up and say, “Well, you know, this is supposed to happen; the Bible predicts it, and the masses are falling away; and what do you expect—this is predicted.” I don't like that defeatist attitude.

Dr. Craig: Boy, I don't either. I don't seen any reason to think that there cannot be just as there have been, great periods of revival and resurgence. If you read Kenneth Scott Latourette's book A History of the Expansion of Christianity – Latourette was a great Yale church historian – he says that the expansion of Christianity as a global religion is like a huge incoming tide that increases and then retreats, advances and then retreats, and then advances and retreats, but it progressively gains ground over time with each advance being greater than the previous retreat. And even if in the West right now we are in a period of, say, retreat in Western Europe, in Asia, Latin America and Africa we are experiencing advances in Christianity that are historically unprecedented. And in the United States Christianity is still very strong. So over time I'm optimistic for what God is doing in the world to bring about his Kingdom, and we shouldn't be discouraged when we see temporary periods of retreat.

Kevin Harris: Well, we are to occupy, we're not to give up and go live in a pine tree with a white robe on and wait for the rapture—we're just not to do it. Bill, I hear many Christians say they don't mind society becoming more secular because of church/state issues, they're staunch church/state separatists, and so on. And they're, like many secular humanists, they want a more secular society because they don't want a theocracy. And very few people, I think, really want a theocracy. I mean, Christians don't, our Muslim friends, it's a different story. But as far as the Christian faith . . .

Dr. Craig: No, there's no danger in this country of having a theocracy—that would go against the Bill of Rights, which says that Congress shall make no law establishing religion or inhibiting the free exercise thereof. So there is absolutely no danger in this country of having a theocracy

Kevin Harris: But there is a danger of having a secular Kingdom.

Dr. Craig: Oh, well, we've already got, I think, a secularized government. It's been aptly said that the United States is a country which is as religious as India but is ruled by a government as secular as Sweden's. And I think that that is a good characterization of where we find ourselves in the United States. But what I am concerned about is having a vital religious life among the American people, not institutionalizing it in governmental or political institutions.

Kevin Harris: I don't know what would be worse, a theocracy, a strict theocracy, or a totally secular society.

Dr. Craig: Well, look at England. [5] England has an established church, unlike the United States where we have no established church—Congress shall make no law establishing religion. In England there is an established church—the Church of England. And look at the deadening effect that has had upon the life of England. In England today the society is very, very largely secular. Less than ten percent of the population attends church. And the establishment of religion in England has not had a positive effect. By contrast, disestablishment in this country, I think, allows religion to flourish. The United States is the most evangelized country on earth. It has the most vibrant, largest Christian organizations in the world; the wealth of these organizations and its sponsorship of the task of world mission is unprecedented. So you don't need to want to have an established religion. We ought to flee from that like the plague, I think, because that would be very bad for Christianity in this country.

Kevin Harris: And when people hear the establishment of religion, that Congress shall make no law, they think that means we need to eradicate any vestige of religious expression, Christian expression, from the public place, and put that in the closet, house, shut it up, keep it in your churches, but don't you dare try to express it anywhere else.

Dr. Craig: And that's false, as well, because the government cannot make any sort of law inhibiting the free exercise of religion. So, for example, many of the laws about the role of religion in schools are grossly misunderstood by the public. The reason the teachers cannot lead in prayer or read the Bible in school is because they're government employees. You see, they're employees of the federal government. So they come under the prohibition of the establishment clause. But students in high school are not employees of the government, so students are quite free to pray at any time in school; they can give their testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ, a valedictorian can lead in prayer at a graduation ceremony, for example.

Kevin Harris: Take a Bible to school.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, that's exactly right. And so a lot of people have thought in this country that the laws are a lot more restrictive of religious expression in schools and in government circles than they really in fact are.

Kevin Harris: Alright, thank you so much for listening today. And be sure you browse around ReasonableFaith.org—there's a lot going on there. We'll see you next time at Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. [6]