Humanitarian or neo-barbarian?

The essence of humanism has been its concern for man’s own well-being. In this context man considers himself to be the final judge of what “well-being“ is the humanistic mind or attitude is man centered.

It does not look to God for values or solutions to human problems. Man becomes his own God; his own ultimate frame of reference; his own source of wisdom and seeking to better his lot.

Basic to humanism is faith in man. There is a conviction of man’s innate goodness. When evil is confronted in existence has been that evil is not in man, but in his environment. Change the environment, it has been believed, and the evil which victimizes man will vanish. Increased wealth, better, housing, improved education and other environmental controls have appeared to be the answer to man’s problems. It has become a parent, even to the humanist the evil seems to proliferate. Those conditions which were contrary to the well-being of man increase, rather than decrease thus it is that some humanists have found their faith in man considerably shaken.

They have begun to perceive that evil appears to be within man. In this startling realization, there comes a new kind of contradictory humanism. There is a loss of faith in others, but not in self. There is a conviction that through self effort, a new kind of man can be created.

Some, such as Nietzsche, Hitler or Lennon believed that a “better man“ could come into being. The contradictory aspect comes in the realization that each “self“ is another to the rest of mankind.

It is valid that one lose faith in all “others“ while retaining the conviction of “self“ confidence, then what of the judgment of others who have the same view. They have lost faith in “me“ as one who can better the human scene.

The isolated humanist is then either to be trusted with the destiny of humanity via “others selves“( self appraisal) or he is not to be trusted, (the appraisal of other self-centered inconsistent humanists). It cannot be both ways.

Today we experienced the onslaught of this kind of self-centered humanist. Men who are of like kind with other men( that we cannot insist on intellectual immoral equality.) are sitting in judgment of all, but “self” and the concurring revolutionary minded minority. What we now witness is the few, self appointed, establishment, destroying new humanist, who believed that they alone have answers to man’s plate of suffering.

These few have two fundamental convictions one is that man’s release from suffering in probation must be a necessity, involve some in suffering in probation. There is another context in which this is true/the suffering and probation involved in resisting tyrant; for example, a condition of war. Thus, we witnessed their destructive efforts, ranging from building burning to the taking of human life. This we must remember is all done in the name of progress. The few with their implicit humanistic confidence and self see other men in their property has expendable and the struggle for progress.

The second, the fundamental but ill founded convictions is belief in the “inevitability of progress.”  The humanistic mentality seems to believe that no matter that occurs ( except working through the establishment and parentheses.) the human situation will improve. Destroy the past, they say, clear the ground in progress will come. This is the basic revolutionary mentality. It is described as a new kind of barbarianism.

To the humanistic mind, there is no God. Civilization is seen as part of nature, like the forest or the grass of the field. Burn it and it will come again green and fresh. The tragedy is that this approach is suicidal.

Belief in the inevitability of progress is completely unfounded on humanistic grounds. If there is no personal God, who cares about man on what basis can we assume that man’s condition will improve?

If the destiny of civilization is determined according to the impersonal forces in the energy within matter and man, then where is the evidence that direction is not a worsening of conditions?

To put it directly, who said progress or improvement is inevitable? This is merely a gratuitous and unexamined assumption, which must be abandoned. Progress is possible, yes! Yet it will not be on man’s humanistic terms. It will not come through humanistic Revolution at the hands of the neo, barbarians or humanistic evolution within the “system“.

Progress will come when humanism is forsaken and replaced with Theism. It will come when man ceases to worship himself and returns to the “scheme“ of the God who put him here.

Someone will say that there seems to be little progress, no matter which way we as a nation approach the problem. Can this nation truly say that it has tried theism? It is always a few obey while the many are revolting— aga against God. Progress can come, but not on humanistic grounds.

The reason, you see, is that the problem is with humans. Evidence? Humanism permits, barbarianism, anarchy and tyranny. These commands respect of others and the reign of law and love.