McKemy 1

Noah McKemy

Mr. Pichette

Philosophy / Period 4

11/18/16

Section 1

1. Humanists believe in a self existing universe, Christians believe in a created

universe. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created

(HM1, affirm. 1).

2. Humanists reject dualism: traditional dualism of mind and body must be

rejected (HM1 affirm. 3). Christians believe that immaterial things such as God and

souls exist outside of the material universe. Ecclesiastes 12:7: Then the dust will return

to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. This reinforces the

idea that when the material body dies, the immaterial soul lives on.
3. Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end

of mans life (HM1, affirm. 8). Christians believe in the afterlife. The most important

goal for Christians is not discovering our personalities, but serving God and following

His will for our lives.

4. Humanists believe in a heightened sense of personal life and efforts to promote

social well-being to be their form of worship and prayer as seen in the ninth affirmation

of the first manifesto. The Christian form of worship and prayer is worship and prayer.

We glorify God through our worship and communicate with God through our prayers,

which contrasts with the Humanists form of worship and prayer.

5. Humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-

hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers,

and to be able to do something about them, is an unproven and outmoded faith (HM2,
 McKemy 2

preface para. 3). While humanists believe that God doesnt hear or answer prayers,

Christians believe that God listens and responds to the prayers of believers. Ephesians

6:8: states: And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lords people.
6. Humanists say that Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so

many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life (HM2, para. 5).

Christians believe that God gives meaning and significance to our lives.
7. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and

harmful (HM2, affirm. 2). Christians believe that after death, those who have received

the gift of salvation will go to Heaven, and those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord and

Savior will go to Hell.

8. Moral values derive their source from human experience (HM2, affirm. 3).

Christians believe in an objective morality which is derived from a perfect and absolutely

good God.
9. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized (HM2,

affirm. 6). Christians have largely held pro-life positions in opposition to abortion. While

the Bible does not directly speak about abortion, many of the foundational principles

which God commands us to live by can be extended to the belief that life begins in the

womb, and that abortion is the wrongful taking of a life.

10. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered

evil (HM2, affirm. 6). The Christian perspective on marriage and sexual relations is

that sex should only be between a man and a woman who are married. Adultery,

fornication, and homosexuality are sins that separate us from God.

11. Humanists believe that humans were the result of unguided evolutionary change

(HM3 para. 4). Christians believe that God is the Creator of all things, and that the Bible

is very clear that humans were personally created by God, and not by unguided evolution.
 McKemy 3

Genesis 1:27 says: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He

created him; male and female He created them.

Section 2

1. Non-sequitur/contradiction - The manifesto talks about how the application of the

scientific method, opened the door to ecological damage, over-population,

dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster

(HM2, para. 2), but in the next paragraph it states that We need to extend the uses of

scientific method, not renounce them (HM2, para. 3). The first statement does not

support the second statements conclusion.

2. Fallacy of Assertion - The manifesto claims that Modern science discredits such

historic concepts as the ghost in the machine and the separable soul. Rather, science
 McKemy 4

affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces (HM2,

affirm. 2). The manifesto claims that science has disproven spiritual things and proven

evolution without offering any solid evidence to back up their claim. By asserting

something without offering proof to back up their claim, the manifesto is committing the

fallacy of assertion.

3. Equivocation - In the preface of the humanist manifesto, they state their definition

of religion, saying: Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of

life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing

situation (theology or worldview), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal),

and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life (HM1, para. 2).

The definition they offer is extremely specific, but as the manifesto goes on, the

definition of religion changes significantly. The manifesto later states, Religion consists

of those actions, purposes and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing

human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship,

recreation (HM1, affirm. 7). This definition of what religion is differs greatly from the

definition earlier given.

4. Generalization - The Humanist Manifesto states that, all associations and

institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life (HM1, affirm. 13). This statement

asserts a universal claim without evidence to back it up. It is also a vague statement that

doesnt define what it means by associations and institutions.

 McKemy 5

5. Ad Hominem - The preface of the second manifesto says: Salvationism, based on

mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven

hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival (HM2, para 3). By

claiming that reasonable minds do not believe in salvationism, the manifesto is

attacking religious people by indirectly saying that only unreasonable people would

believe in religion. By attacking the person instead of the idea, the humanists are

committing an Ad Hominem.

6. Begging the Question / Non-sequitur - The Humanist Manifesto states: In the

best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals (HM2, affirm. 1).

However, the manifesto also states: We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or

authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and

experience do a disservice to the human species (HM2, affirm. 1). The manifesto claims

that religions inspire people to have the highest ethical ideals, but in the following lines it

claims that most religions do a disservice to mankind. The whole point of religions are

that they place their beliefs in God or their ideals above themselves.

7. Appeal to the Future - Humanists claim, Nature may indeed be broader and

deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our

knowledge of the natural (HM2, affirm. 1). The accuracy of this statement cannot be

proven currently, and the humanists are making the statement that all future discoveries in

science will only enhance their view of the natural, without accepting other possibilities.
 McKemy 6

8. Fallacy of Assertion - Humanists state, The humanists are firmly convinced that

existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and

that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted (HM1, affirm.

14). The humanists dismiss the idea of a capitalistic society as false without giving

adequate reasons for the dismissal.

9. Contradiction/ Inconsistency - In the second Manifestos third affirmation, they

state, We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is

autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems

from human need and interest (HM2, affirm. 3). This subjective view of morality is

contradicted with the objective moral statement, The cultivation and conservation of

nature is a moral value (HM2, affirm. 14). The humanists state that moral values come

from individual human experiences, but then they later attempt to make the conservation

of nature a universal and objective moral value.

10. False Dichotomy - The humanists present the premise that, Ethics stems from

human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life (HM2, affirm. 3).

The humanists present only two options in what people can believe about ethics, while in

reality there are multiple options. The humanists say that you either believe in their view

of ethics based on human need and interest, or you can distort the whole basis of lifeby

believing in a different view of ethics.

11. Circular Reasoning - The third Humanist Manifesto claims, Humanists rely on

the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in
 McKemy 7

times of want and encouragement in times of plenty (HM3, affirm. 4). The humanists

are attempting to prove that humanism is a better alternative to religion in solving human

problems by saying that humanists rely on humanism for comfort and encouragement.

The premise is the same as the conclusion, therefore, they are committing circular

reasoning.

12. Equivocation - The humanists in the first manifesto claim to be followers of

religious humanism, Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not

created (HM1, affirm. 1). In the second manifesto, however, they claim to be naturalistic

humanists, Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and

emphases of naturalistic humanism include scientific, ethical, democratic,

religious, and Marxist humanism (HM2, para. 6). The humanists change their

definition of humanism from being purely religious humanism to being naturalistic

humanism with religious humanism being just a subcategory. The elements of their

argument changes as the argument develops.

 McKemy 8

Section 3

1. In the Humanist Manifesto, you (the writers) assert that, Ethics stems from

human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life (HM2, affirm. 3).

Is there a scientific way for you to prove your theory of ethics is correct? I ask this

because you have often stated in the Manifestos that you believe only what science can

prove. Since science cannot definitively prove your statement to be right or wrong, it is

inconsistent for you to be claiming something to be true without backing it up with

evidence.

2. In the first humanist manifesto you say that, A socialized and cooperative

economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means

of life be possible (HM1, affirm. 14). In creating a socialistic economic system,

wouldnt you be taking away the freedom of the individual to choose what to do with

their wealth, and also be lowering the quality of life for the people who you take wealth

from? The humanists support freedom for the individual, but they also want to force

people to get in line with their philosophies, even if it is harmful to some individuals.
 McKemy 9

3. In the first manifesto you make the claim that, all associations and institutions

exist for the fulfillment of human life (HM1, affirm. 13). If you believe that every

association and institution is created for the fulfillment of human life, then would you

agree that government institutions such as the death camps of Nazi Germany, or

associations such as the Ku Klux Klan were created for the fulfillment of human life? The

generalization they made can be easily disproven with one counterexample.

4. If you believe that moral values and ethics comes from human need and interest

(HM2, affirm. 3), then how can you claim with certainty that, The cultivation and

conservation of nature is a moral value (HM2, affirm. 14), considering that not every

individual may believe it to be true? The subjective view of ethics which they believe in

is inconsistent with the objective view they assert regarding nature.

5. You have stated that, The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a

central humanist value (HM2, affirm. 5). You have also stated that, Holding an organic

view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be

rejected (HM1, affirm. 3). How can you justify your belief that human life can have any

inherent preciousness or dignity considering that you belief in a materialist worldview?

The belief that the material world is the only world that exists negates the idea that

anything can have worth of a non-material nature.

 McKemy 10

Section 4

1. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Humanist Manifesto is the materialistic

worldview they follow. The Humanist Manifesto states, Holding an organic view of life,

humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected (HM1,

affirm. 3). Because they reject the idea that things exist outside of the observable material

world, they cannot justify their belief that human life has value, or that the quest for the

good life is still the central task for mankind (HM1, affirm. 15). There is no way to

measure what is right and wrong if the world consists of only material things, because

right and wrong are immaterial. The Manifesto itself addresses this when it says,

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes

unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values (HM1, affirm 5). It

is, therefore, inconsistent for the humanists to make claims about the importance of

immaterial ideals such as tolerance, equality, or the importance of human life.

2. The rejection of religion is another major weakness of the Humanist Manifesto.

They say that, In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical

ideals (HM2, affirm. 1). Humanists want to take the good morals and ideals of religion

while rejecting the reasons why religious people act the way they do. Humanists state,

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place

revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the
 McKemy 11

human species (HM2, affirm. 1). Religions that place God and others above the self are

the most successful at producing moral and righteous people. The sacrifices that people

have made for their beliefs have made the greatest improvement in the lives of others in

the community. The humanists believe that religions take away the independence of

people, but in their own beliefs they say that, The joining of individuality with

interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and

inspires hope of attaining peace, justice and opportunity for all (HM 3, para. 7). They

argue against placing God and ideals above humanity is wrong, while also believing in a

creed that takes away freedoms from people, saying, Humanists demand a shared life in

a shared world (HM1, affirm. 14).

3. Thirdly, humanists claim that all morals are subjective, while also claiming

several objective statements about morality. The manifesto states, We affirm that moral

values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational

needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and

interest (HM2, affirm. 3). This statement is contradictory with the many statements in

the manifesto which claim a truth to be objectively true, such as, The cultivation and

conservation of nature is a moral value (HM2, affirm. 14), and The principle of moral

equality must be furthered through the elimination of all discrimination based upon race,

religion, sex, age, or national origin (HM 2, affirm 11). If the subjective view of

morality is true, then the personal experiences that people develop which are racist, or

hateful, or anti-nature, or anti-human are completely acceptable and shouldnt be

repressed. If something is viewed as morally acceptable by one person, someone else

shouldnt try to shackle the person with their own personal morality.
 McKemy 12

Section 5

The writers of the Humanist Manifesto appear to have good intentions in trying to

improve the lives of all humans, but the arguments they make and methods they put forward for

accomplishing their goals are full of fallacies and contradictions.

Their materialistic worldview puts them in conflict with their beliefs about morality, the

worth of human life, and ethics. They claim to adhere to only that which can be scientifically

proven, but they make several unscientific claims based upon emotion. They cannot scientifically

prove what is right or wrong, or why people should get along with each other. The manifesto

claims to support independence and tolerance, but their statements for achieving their goals are

very authoritarian and intolerant. The socialist economic system they would like to install would

destroy the free market system and restrict peoples freedom of choice economically. Likewise,

statements such as Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated (HM2, affirm. 8) are in

stark contrast to their ideals about voluntary participation and freedom of thought. I respect their

ideals of conserving nature, treating people with respect, and improving the lives of the less

fortunate, but their methods for accomplishing their goals are questionable. They fail to explain

how a self-existing universe with no objective morality would cause them to believe that humans

have inherent worth and purpose. The Humanist Manifesto uses ad hominems and ad lapidems

against religion without providing a compelling argument why they believe religion is unable to

function in the modern world.

In conclusion, the Humanist Manifesto has failed to convince me of the superiority of

Humanism to Christianity. The inconsistencies and fallacies present throughout the manifesto

greatly weaken their arguments and discredit their philosophy of Humanism.