Chuck Edwards: Secular Humanism is a Religion
The bottom line is this: all worldviews are at bottom religious in nature. Therefore, every subject taught in school and all political discussion, by necessity, must involve ideas that can be traced back to their religious origins. This is just the nature of how ideas work. Worldview analysis exposes the fallacy of a religiously "neutral" education or the misinformed idea that political issues can be separated from a religious foundation.
Ideas don't just pop out of thin air. They are never formed in isolation. The ideas we hold in one area, such as education or politics, come from other, more foundational, ideas. And every idea is ultimately rooted in religious beliefs. A worldview approach to life provides the framework for this understanding. Therefore, we need to share the insights of worldview thinking with our friends, co-workers, public school teachers, principals, and politicians.
Source: Summit Ministries [emphasis added]
Wait, all worldviews are religious?? There is no such thing as a secular worldview? How is that supposed to work? Chuck Edwards thinks he can make this argument on the basis of a single definition of "religion" which is centered around belief in an "Ultimate Reality." It's not a bad definition, but it's definitely lacking some important characteristics of religions (like a distinction between the sacred and profane, ethical rules, etc.) and leaves open what "Ultimate Reality" is supposed to be. Defining an ambiguous concept with an even more ambiguous concept is not progress — on the contrary, it can lead to regression when it allows people like Edwards to make a mess of things like this.
Is it accidental that Chuck Edwards doesn’t define what he think "Ultimate Reality" is supposed to mean and how it eliminates the possibility of any sort of secular worldview? I don't think so — I think he moves from the definition to the immediate assertion that "Secular Humanism" is a religion because that's the conclusion he desperately wants to validate. I'm not sure that he realizes that "secular" means "non-religious" and that he's basically asserting a self-contradiction, but I'm also not sure he'd care if he did notice because at no point does he explain why it might be reasonable to think that everyone is necessarily and by definition religious.
Edwards is correct that ideas don't pop out of thin air and that all our ideas, beliefs, and opinions are created in the context of our worldview, but he's not correct to think that every worldview which exists is necessarily religious. Some are and some aren't. Edwards needs every worldview to be religious, though, because he's committed himself to the proposition that government neutrality in religious matters is impossible. If government is always and everywhere supporting some religion, then it's easier to make the argument that this religion should be Christianity — and thereby defend the authoritarian privileges of traditional, orthodox Christianity.
Comments
I guess I’d have to see his definition of reality. I tried the link, but the main Web page isn’t where this article is posted, and I’m not going to hunt for it. But I’m not sure what he means by “religious,” and whether or not that reflects an idea that most people would accept to define the word “religious.”
But I think most people understand, and would use the phrase, “He/She is not a religious person.” So, I can’t imagine people, just in general terms, agreeing that ‘everyone’ is religious or has some ‘religion.’ If that’s the case, to whom does the word “irreligious” refer to? Does he think it’s a meaningless term? I guess he must, but I can’t imagine that many people would be in agreement that this word describes a fantasy person. I’m sure we all know people we’d call “irreligious” and not think twice about it.
Although I can’t say for sure without seeing his description, I’d have to guess just based on general terminology and general word use and general dictionary fare, that his use of the term “religious” is, at least to some degree, proprietary…?
Theists will do all acrobats necessary to hold on to delusions. He is the kind of person that thinks philosophy should be listed under religion at the bookstore…
Edwards might be correct.
Xianity can be traced back to paganism.
The Xian worldview has elements of paganism, Persian dualism, Hebrew monotheism, etc., etc. There is nothing new in Xianity. Justin Martyr, Augustine and Cardinal Newman agreed on that point.
You know what?
I am almost ready to accept the challenge.
O.K., Naturalism is a religion.
Whose “prophets” have made the most accurate predictions over time?
If your “prophets” fail, please, step aside!
How can a worldview that includes belief in nothing be included in a list of religions?
Many atheists do have beliefs about what is and isn’t so, but at its core, an atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god. It is a fact that some atheists do not believe in anything at all — perfect existentialists. They just exist and have a good time.
Maybe Edwards is referring to a subset of strong atheists, who deny certain gods… I doubt it, though.
I’ve never had any problems with my atheism. I go from day to day without any thoughts of any gods (until now), but normally I’m not beleaguered with a religious need. I am in my 70’s and I have no regrets that my life has been totally free of religious encumbrances.
I have never wanted to kill anyone, destroy anyone’s property, trip old people with canes, plot against the government, beat my wife or abuse any children. I find it very strange that religious people may think that I have no morals. My morals are much better than people like Benny Hinn, Peter Poppof, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard and a whole lot of other “evangelists” who are out there screwing the overly zealous, deluded fundies that pay for their every word.
It’s speaks very poorly of his “religious beliefs” if these are the sort of ideas that spring forth from them.
The devil is in the details as usual. In so far as secular humanists think man is good or moral, I would say that they have a species of religion without the rituals and other magical nonsense. I think man is basically a crook, sucker, and lazy coward. He is nothing but a collection of weaknesses for crooks to feed on.
‘The devil is in the details as usual. In so far as secular humanists think man is good or moral, I would say that they have a species of religion without the rituals and other magical nonsense.’
How does thinking man is good or moral mean that the thinker has a religion? I’m not saying I agree with it but the second statement doesn’t follow from the first.
‘I think man is basically a crook, sucker, and lazy coward. He is nothing but a collection of weaknesses for crooks to feed on.’
You’ve said this quite a few times John Hanks, so I’d like to ask for some clarification as to what exactly you mean when you say ‘man’.
Do you mean every single person is a sucker and a lazy coward, including yourself? Or do you mean that most people fit this description?
Also, on what do you base these ideas?