Creationist Wisdom #980: Science Is Inhuman

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Times-Republican of Marshalltown, Iowa. It’s titled Secularism is inhuman, and the newspaper doesn’t seem to have a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Kerry. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Secularism is defined as the indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. [Sounds horrible!] … Secularists believe religion is for simple-minded individuals who are hiding from the facts, hiding from their world assessment that’s based strictly upon facts alone.

Facts alone? Secularists are bad! Then Kerry says:

Secularism is materialistic and naturalistic, limiting reality to what can be tested scientifically. [That’s absurd!] But secularism alone cannot explain the substance of what it is to be human. What evolutionary process could have caused the formation of the appreciation and enjoyment of beauty? Likewise, how does science explain the human characteristics of joy, sacrificial love, honor, peace, hope within pain, certitude, virtue, compassion, mercy? What is the scientific basis for human equality, human rights?

Science is horribly limited! Kerry tells us:

In a purely secularistic culture, what provides the moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of science and technology? [Who restrains the scientists?] What teaches brotherly love? Or the meaning and purpose of life? Secularism alone cannot provide the basis for sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness.

Secularism is the biggest problem we have! Kerry continues:

How could the United States have ever become a country without declaring the inalienable rights that serve as the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provided by Christian traditions?

We discussed that in Is America a “Christian Nation”? Let’s read on:

And in a naturalist world, wouldn’t we all just basically be cosmically irrelevant?

Irrelevant? Egad! Something must be done about this! But what? Perhaps it’s in the final paragraph of Kerry’s letter:

Scientific knowledge alone is inapplicable to the central aspects of what it is to be human. Secularism robs hope and solace that people so profoundly need. Secularism by itself is inhuman.

It’s inhuman! We’re doomed!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #980: Science Is Inhuman

  1. Hey Kerry. If your hypothesis is correct, how do you explain the great lives of Scandinavians? They’re far happier, at the top of surveys evaluating quality of life. Americans placed 14th in a recent survey.. Scandinavians are far less religious than Americans. I think that relationship provides interesting food for thought.

  2. Kerry built a classic strawman and then enjoys knocking it down.

  3. Michael Fugate

    Secularism protects Kerry’s freedom to worship at the religious institution of his choosing. Government neutrality is not endorsing atheism – does Kerry really want the government to dictate his religion?

    Kerry, a database manager with a degree in computer science (Salem effect?), made the news during the 2016 election.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rubio-courts-christian-vote-trump-proves-surprisingly-strong

  4. Kerry asks “And in a naturalist world, wouldn’t we all just basically be cosmically irrelevant?” Yes. As far as we can tell, the universe is not effected by us at all, although we are doing a pretty fine job of messing up our little planet on the edge of a fairly ordinary one of the 100 billion or so galaxies in the universe.

  5. chris schilling

    I’ll leave it to others to define secularism proper, if they so choose. Kerry seems to be confusing it with nihilism (which I guess in his eyes it is).

    But here’s some real nihilism for Kerry. His life has no cosmic relevance. The universe is indifferent to his fate. He will die, and ultimately be forgotten, just like most of us. It won’t matter whether he is “saved” because no-one will know, one way or the other.

    A pertinent question might be: is it better to live with Kerry’s sort of illusions? Or not?

  6. “Secularism is defined as the indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.”
    Hey, I learned something. In Dutch secularisme means that religion and belief should not influence society (Dutch Wikipedia), particularly politics. Though a staunch unbeliever myself I’d like to restrict the meaning even further: the idea that religious authorities should not influence politics.

    “Secularists believe …..”
    Ironically Kerry confirms that he’s a simple-minded believer, because no, I don’t believe that at all. Augustinus of Hippo was one of the greatest mind of Antiquity.

    “how does science explain …..”
    God of the gaps. Yawn.

    “what provides the moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of science and technology?”
    Simple-minded indeed. Moral restraints never have prevented humans to do all kind of horrible things. That’s why secularists like me look for more effective ways.

    “Secularism alone cannot provide the basis for sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness.”
    I’m a big fan of people who praise sacrifice sacrifising themselves.
    Redemption is something I don’t need – as an unbeliever I am no sinner.
    Forgiveness is a bit complicated indeed – I cannot simply say “I’ve prayed and God has forgiven me, so I’m OK”.

    “How could the United States have ever become a country ….. provided by Christian traditions?”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    Yeah, how did China and Japan do it?

    “And in a naturalist world, wouldn’t we all just basically be cosmically irrelevant?”
    Yes. That’s why naturalists/secularists are humble people and Kerry is not.

    “Scientific knowledge alone is inapplicable to the central aspects of what it is to be human.”
    Well, yes.

    “Secularism robs hope and solace that people so profoundly need.”
    That Kerry so profoundly need. I know what do to and where to go when I need hope and solace.

    “Secularism by itself is inhuman.”
    First step towards genocide: argue that your opponents hold an inhuman view.
    Our world is better off without views like Kerry’s.

  7. @ChrisS and others: “I’ll leave it to others to define secularism proper”
    To my amazement Kerry’s definition can be found in Merriam-Webster and is cited on English Wikipedia.

  8. ” Secularism robs hope and solace that people so profoundly need.”
    This is true for people who are brainwashed into religion as they have never learned to see and deal with reality…and LIVE a fuller life!

  9. “Kerry” appears to be making the classic creationist arguments that our lives would have no meaning and that we would have no moral authority to guide us if we lived (or believed we lived) in a naturalistic world.

    But:
    (1) Our lives have whatever meaning we and others ascribe to them, which does not depend on a belief in the supernatural.

    (2) Evolution provides a means for weeding out undesirable moral standards. Yes, I know creationists claim just the opposite: that Darwinism envisions a dog-eat-dog world. But Darwin himself noted the importance of cooperation in evolution, certainly for social species such as our own.

    (3) As for the moral authority of the Bible, consider Genesis 19:8, regarding Lot’s daughtrs, and reflect that the Bible calls Lot a righteous man.