A spokesperson for the group said, "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds."
Here's why I think that seed would never take root if we are thinking rationally or critically:
1. It is irrational to think that a person can believe there is no God and then to say he will be good "for goodness sake". That statement is as much of a faith statement as any religious assumption and does not hold up to critical scrutiny. My question to the AHA would be, "How does one define goodness?" Or maybe an even better question would be, "How does one know that there is such a thing as goodness?"
When a person makes a statement that we should be good for goodness sake he is presupposing that goodness has been defined in some way and is broadly understood and has influence and meaning. To assume goodness is to assume some kind of moral absolute- a kind of higher authority has to be in place to define that goodness. Otherwise, what makes MY assumption of goodness any better than anyone else's? Who says your definition of goodness is really good? By what standard are you defining your goodness?
For instance, what is the moral authority in Atheistic humanism? Isn't it true that Darwinian atheism would have to say that the highest good is that which advances the species? Is it not true that in nature big fish eat little fish and big cells eat small cells? Does it not stand to reason then that if your definition of goodness is "survival of the fittest" that murder and pestilence and rape and racial genocide are all as equally good and acceptable as any expression of love or kindness?
So I have no problem with the atheist who wants to advertise his world view on Washington city buses saying something like "Be good for your own sake but don't push your sense of goodness on me!" or "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may die!" and claiming to be rational and consistent in his beliefs in those expressions, but it is intellectually dishonest for him to say "Just be good for goodness sake" when the very philosophical world-view he is trying to promote assumes that "goodness" is an unprovable and even irrelevant concept.
Here's why I think that seed would never take root if we are thinking rationally or critically:
1. It is irrational to think that a person can believe there is no God and then to say he will be good "for goodness sake". That statement is as much of a faith statement as any religious assumption and does not hold up to critical scrutiny. My question to the AHA would be, "How does one define goodness?" Or maybe an even better question would be, "How does one know that there is such a thing as goodness?"
When a person makes a statement that we should be good for goodness sake he is presupposing that goodness has been defined in some way and is broadly understood and has influence and meaning. To assume goodness is to assume some kind of moral absolute- a kind of higher authority has to be in place to define that goodness. Otherwise, what makes MY assumption of goodness any better than anyone else's? Who says your definition of goodness is really good? By what standard are you defining your goodness?
For instance, what is the moral authority in Atheistic humanism? Isn't it true that Darwinian atheism would have to say that the highest good is that which advances the species? Is it not true that in nature big fish eat little fish and big cells eat small cells? Does it not stand to reason then that if your definition of goodness is "survival of the fittest" that murder and pestilence and rape and racial genocide are all as equally good and acceptable as any expression of love or kindness?
So I have no problem with the atheist who wants to advertise his world view on Washington city buses saying something like "Be good for your own sake but don't push your sense of goodness on me!" or "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may die!" and claiming to be rational and consistent in his beliefs in those expressions, but it is intellectually dishonest for him to say "Just be good for goodness sake" when the very philosophical world-view he is trying to promote assumes that "goodness" is an unprovable and even irrelevant concept.
2. A second observation I would make is that it is irrational and not critical thinking for a group that claims to be atheist and therefore does not want a holiday promoting a religious view to then want to promote their own world view. After all, are they not then guilty of the very thing they are criticizing? If a person is trying to make the argument that no truth is absolute and therefore we should live in a world without any faith assumptions, without any religions or expressions of religion (like Christmas) because after all truth is not knowable and so we should live in harmony without having all these faiths pushed upon us, then by virtue of their own argument they should not be trying to promote their view.
The humanist objection to religion is that it is "unscientific" and superstitious. The humanist believes that truth is relative and therefore religious claims on absolute truth are irrational. But to say "Truth is relative" is a statement of truth and therefore should be considered not dependable and irrational. To the person who says "There is no such thing as absolute truth", we should always ask, "Are you absolutely sure about that?" If truth is unknowable then that truth is unknowable and therefore the belief about what is not knowable is by virtue of it's own definition a faith assumption. Make no mistake about it, the American Humanist Association is a faith organization. Their expressions of non-religion are in and of themselves religious views. They are faith assumptions about the meaning of life, being and salvation. "Be good for goodness sake" is as much a religious statement as "Oh come let us adore Him".
3. It is irrational to think that if everyone in America believed like the AMA that somehow the world would be a better place. Nothing could be further from the truth (and I believe that absolutely). Imagine what it would be like if everyone of us relied upon our own version of goodness.
For thousands of years Christian culture has believed that man's sense of morality and goodness came from outside of humanity and is therefore not determined by his feelings, sensitivities or emotions. Morality has always been understood as something that has come to us. In fact, the very celebration of Christmas points to Immanuel- God has come to us. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." (John1:1)
The influence of humanism in our culture is increasing. This is seen in a new kind of morality that says that truth is not found in a higher authority, but is found in the personal whims and feelings within the human heart.
Think of how destructive this belief truly is.
Imagine if Western culture had continued in the Greco-Roman ethic of the first century that women were little more than property and that weak, handicapped and female newborn babies could be cast into garbage dumps and that lower castes are destined for exploitation. What if Christianity had not reversed these terrible paganisitc beliefs in the third century?
What would it have been like if Christianity had not taken hold and Western culture bought into the Humanistic idea that we can find goodness in ourselves?
Imagine what our world would be like if it had not been for great men of faith and science like Augustine, Anselm and Ambrose- who were inspired by their reading of scripture and from a desire to know His creation sewed the seeds of scientific method and philosophy.
Imagine our world without hospitals or universities, public education and health care, all the result of Christianity's influence in the Middle Ages.
What if Western cultures had just relied on their own sense of goodness and not begun the exploration of a created universe as a way of better understanding the glory of God?
Imagine if their had been no Luther who held up Scripture and pointed to the injustices of a bloated institution that was operating more out of it's own need for power than it was an understanding of the sacred text.
What if 18th century England had not mandated the end of slavery because of their biblical understanding of the value of all human life?
Imagine if their had been no Puritan movement that dreamed of a society based on the Biblical concepts of community and righteousness and so acted on that belief by sailing to a new world and risking everything to establish the American colonies.
Imagine how terrible the outcome if Atheists and Humanist world views promoted by men like Hitler, Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Mao and Pol Pot had prevailed in the early 20th centuries .
Imagine an America without the Great Awakenings in which social movements, inspired by spiritual renewal and the teaching of scripture such as the abolition of slavery, child labor laws, property rights, and women's right to vote had never been enacted.
Imagine if there had been no Martin Luther King who led a movement across the south for racial equality based on his view that there was a higher moral law that superseded the laws and "feelings" of man.
The AHA is neither rational nor thinking critically in their advertisement and I hope their ideas do not prevail. But they have every right to promote their beliefs and to do what they can to convince others to believe in their religion.
But they only have that right because they are beneficiaries of a society that was established on the biblical concept of soul competency and freedom of the conscience of belief promoted by theologians like Roger Williams, the 17th century Baptist minister who founded Rhode Island and whose beliefs, rooted in scripture, were formalized into law and became the precursor to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
To say that we can simply rely on the goodness of the human heart is not just irrational, it is also terribly naive. If there is no God, there is no moral absolute that defines the meaning of goodness. The lessons of history very clearly teach that man is incapable of finding his own goodness.
That is why I can't be good for goodness sake.
And it is the reason that this is the time of the year we so vigorously celebrate His incarnation by singing songs like "Joy to the World" that have words like this:
Joy to the world, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.
He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders of His love,
And wonders, wonders, of His love.
