You can't immanentize the eschaton.
Published on June 2, 2005 By stutefish In Life
Got into a (very) brief debate with Michael Totten about secular humanism, in the comments on this post. Specifically, we were talking about why some conservatives consider Democracy and Education by John Dewey a "dangerous book".

Anyway, it was the first time I'd actually written down my thoughts on secular humanism, so I figured I might as well archive them here, for future reference (and, hopefully, further debate).

Below are the relevant bits.


Secular humanism proposes that man is self-perfectible. That not only does the supernatural not exist, but that the supernatural is unecessary for the fulfilment of man's potential for good. That man has the innate ability to achieve perfect peace and justice, without any external intervention or assistance.

I believe that all of recorded history, and each individual human being that I have ever met or learned very much about, all present compelling evidence that secular humanism is wrong about man. I think it's obvious that there is something profoundly "broken" in man, and that man does not have the innate ability to "fix" that broken thing. Therefore, any philosophy that preaches self-perfectibility is misleading and dangerous.

Take theoretical communism, for example: totally secular, and totally committed to the proposition that man can create a perfect society composed of perfect citizens. But when communism is put into practice, its dangers become manifest. Rather than building a perfect society, secular humanist policies tend to produce some of the worst totalitarian regimes known to man.

If you believe that man is self-perfectible; that greed and hate are aberrations, unnatural and foreign to the human psyche; then how do you explain their persistence throughout history, in the face of the greatest efforts by the wisest men to overcome them? If perfect humans are taught imperfection by flawed societies, then where do flawed societies learn imperfection from? Evil space aliens? It can't be from the perfect people who founded these imperfect societies, can it?

Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 07, 2005
Well I haveta say the probablility is much larger that God does exist than doesn't. Latour your assumption is that it's religion that we believe brings us to heaven. But I don't believe it has anything to do with religion at all although I haveta admit many do and are being deceived.

It's about having a relationship. Knowing who God is. I don't just let anyone into my house and neither will God. A relationship has to be there in the first place regardless of religion affiliation. And as far as being a good person.....how good is good enough? It has nothing to do with being good at all. It's not about what YOU are but about WHO you know. We are influenced by our associations so the good is a result of WHO we hang around with. I'm only Good cuz I'm kickin with Christ. He said himself....."there is none good, not even one." And he also said...."A fool says in his heart, there is no God."

Oh and by the way.....there really is no such thing as an atheist. An atheist says, there is no God with certainty and an agnostic says they don't belive there is a God. Do you know all there is to know about everything? Are you all knowing? You're better off calling yourself an agnostic.
on Jun 08, 2005
If anyone says prayer in school is the answer to all of society's problems, I will go absolutely nuts.


You may as well start going nuts, because lots of people really do believe this.
on Jun 08, 2005
An atheist says, there is no God with certainty and an agnostic says they don't belive there is a God. Do you know all there is to know about everything? Are you all knowing? You're better off calling yourself an agnostic


by the same token there's no such thing as a theist.

me...i'm a jehovah's agnostic. we go door to door and wake people up at the crack of dawn on weekends to give them the good news: one day while singing 'all along the watchtower' we mighta seen something but we don't know what it was.
on Jun 09, 2005
Oh and by the way.....there really is no such thing as an atheist. An atheist says, there is no God with certainty and an agnostic says they don't belive there is a God. Do you know all there is to know about everything? Are you all knowing? You're better off calling yourself an agnostic


by the same token there's no such thing as a theist.


I guess me and KFC agree on the non-existance of a long list of gods (Thor, Zeus, Krishna, the invisible pink unicorn), just can't seem to agree on one.

Latour your assumption is that it's religion that we believe brings us to heaven.


I believe that was your assumption, that belief in god and having a relationship with him/her/it/them (some sort of religion) is the ticket to heaven, and those who don't believe (atheists) are not going to be rewarded.

I don't just let anyone into my house and neither will God.


So an all knowing being doesn't know me well enough? interesting...
on Jun 09, 2005
STUTEFISH: If man is self-perfectible, why hasn't he perfected himself yet?
PACDRAGON: Because he lacks the technology.
STUTEFISH: Since when does technology solve metaphysical problems?




Heh, well at least I'm not the only one who believes technology is the answer. One of the advances you learn in Alpha Centauri, the futuristic version of Civilization 2, is Ethical Calculus

But seriously, what I meant was that there could potentially be a mode of behaviour, similar to what Secular Humanism or Christianity try to accomplish (mankind doing the right thing almost all the time), that would actually work. I believe such a thing is possible and could be done by humans & without religion. What it actually is, I have no idea, so for the time being I just listen to that inner voice that tells me not to kill people.
on Jun 09, 2005
You make sense, PD. But wouldn't any technology that makes sure we always do what our conscience tells us to do cancel out free will?

Anyway, the theme of my article might be expressed like this:

Christianity tells us that we already know right from wrong, what the origin of right and wrong is, that we are free to choose between the two, that we are unable to always choose right over wrong, and that there is a solution to this problem.

My question is, what does "Secular" Humanism have to say on these subjects?
on Jun 09, 2005
latour said, "So an all knowing being doesn't know me well enough? interesting..."

It's not like that at all. Rather, the "all-knowing being" knows you very well indeed. For example, It knows that you have chosen not to commune with it. It also knows that without this communion, you will be eternally incomplete and unable to realize your full potential as a chosen companion of God. But Its rule is this: If you choose to forgo the communion, It will respect your choice, and allow you to follow the path of incompleteness and failure.

Would you rather the Almighty forced you to love and obey It, against your will? Or perhaps you'd rather be a beast, totally lacking in free will, and bound by blind instinct to Its plan, without ever knowing the freedom of choice?
on Jun 09, 2005
Fish-man wrote: "But wouldn't any technology that makes sure we always do what our conscience tells us to do cancel out free will?"

Not technology, as in microchips that force behavior. But more like human-produced philosophies that offer an easy to understand and easy to follow mode of behaviour. Perhaps heralded via an effective and non-annoying media campaign to embed the meme into a majority of the popopulus.

I think what secular humansim is trying to say on the subject is that humans know right from wrong. Some choose to willfully ignore it, or have mental disorders that prevent it, so we should have institutions available for those situations. But that religion is not necessary for a Lawful Good society, the capability is within us.

Although one could say that my futuristic ethical calculus meme is simply a religion under a different name (and the same could possibly be said for secular humanism) and then I would have to concede the point. But I don't think these philosophies have to be divine-based to produce a good-aligned society.
on Jun 09, 2005
By the way, I just watched Spiderman 2 again. Now that would be a great vehicle for spreading this new meme
on Jun 09, 2005
way to go Stutefish....my thoughts exactly. That's why he's a just God....that way no one on the other side of eternity (at the judgment) can cry....no fair.......it was a choice you made.....like I said I'm in a win-win situation.....but it's more than that....it's freedom. We're either a slave to Satan or a servant of Christ's....the only difference is....Christ sets us free.......

on Jun 09, 2005
Kingbee said....."by the same token there's no such thing as a theist."

That's not true.....we have physical evidence.....what evidence do you have against a deity?


You may want to check, the historical, prophetical, archaelogical, and scientific evidence. Oh and also the eyewittness account of the resurrection. Not only by the gospel writers but also by the non Christian Jewish writers of the first century as well.
3 Pages1 2 3