Tag Archives: Secular World View


Naturalism is the underpinning of Secular Humanism.  Humanism, as a philosophy that values human beings, is not inconsistent with Christian beliefs and the Bible, as God placed so much emphasis on human beings that He created us in His own image.  So it is not the word “humanist” that is so much of the problem, it is the “secular” part, which means to be absent of a God or Supreme Being.  Put them together and you have the first problem with Secular Humanism: It’s all about “me”.  In other words, God has been replaced by man as the supreme.  Thus, the result of putting man in charge of whatever makes him happy is the abandonment of an absolute moral law.  Morality is whatever pleases us, whatever may be “politically correct”, and sounds and looks good to other people.

To recognize there is an absolute moral law would require one to acknowledge there is an absolute moral law GIVER: God.  Since naturalists, and thus secular humanists do not believe in the existence of God, then there is not absolute moral law giver except man, and we tend to easily accept whatever “feels” good to us.  Many may remember the saying that was popularized in the late 1960’s and 1970’s: “If it feels good… do it.”  That pretty much sums up man’s moral law philosophy.  However, societal trends in political correctness, such as compassion, diversity, human rights and freedoms, etc. also have a strong impact on what the world considers as “moral”, but there is inherent conflicts even among the “politically correct” regarding its finer points.  There is probably no better illustration than in the movement to “empower” women to choose to have abortions, and the “rights” of the unborn babies.  By definition, if man were indeed the absolute moral law giver, there would be neither conflict nor changes in moral standards to meet the personal desires of various groups.  However,  since even secular, naturalist, humanist mankind cannot successfully navigate to an absolute standard, it becomes evident, at least to those with a Christian worldview, that man cannot be the giver of absolute morals or truth.


As our country has followed much of the world and moved into a more and more secular society, secularism has a profound impact on people’s thinking, how they view the world including spiritual and social issues, and can even have a strong impact on issues such as crime and civil unrest.  As Christians, it is important that we take a look at our society as it is today, and where it may be heading if we do nothing.  Let us examine some of the specific evidence we see in the world today.


  • When God is removed from the view, thoughts and minds of a society, then something must replace God, and that is “self”. As shown earlier, it’s all about “me”. The media, magazines, many Self Magazine Cover 2politicians and political activist groups glorify and promote the personal, social and “health” benefits of making live all about “me”. When we begin to see ourselves at the top of the power chain, there is no need for God in our lives, because we believe WE are in control. The first Commandment God gave Moses was “I am the Lord your God and I will not have any other gods before me.” Lucifer’s “sin” was he elevated himself above God and was thrown out of heaven. When we elevate ourselves above God, what is the difference?
  • One of the first casualties of secularism is morality, orME Magazine Cover fundamental moral laws. If one were to acknowledge the existence of absolute moral laws, then there would logically have to the acknowledgement of a “moral law giver”, God. If there is no God is society, then the maker and judge or morality is the replacement for God: man.
  • The general philosophy of secularism is that traditional religious ideas, their established institutions and their interpretations and doctrines have lost their social significance in today’s post-modern society. In the 1960’s we began to see the evidence of the casualty of this thinking and the insignificance of traditional moral values when our society began to lose its sense of shame. In particular, sexual freedom and diversity began to spread as we saw a rapid decline in traditional morality replaced by sexual perverseness. For example, one need only watch movies and television shows from the 1950’s and see the difference in the 1970’s and beyond to see the dramatic differences in sexuality, profane language, violence etc. In 1936, the movie “Gone With the Wind” was banned at many theaters Gone With the Wind Movie Poster - 1936because Rhett Butler said to Scarlet O’Hara when she inquired of him as he was walking out the door and said: “Rhett… if you go, where shall I go, what shall I do?”, he responded: “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” That was sufficient to violate the moral standards of the time. Compare that to the language we see on television, let alone in the movies today. Thus we can easily see the pervasiveness of the thinking that the traditional morality of the Bible has lost its significance in today’s society.


… pluralization, which sounds like a practical and worthy idea; and in many ways, it is. In pluralism you have a competing number of worldviews that are available, and no worldview is dominant. But smuggled in with pluralization was the absolutization of relativism. The only thing we could be sure of was that all moral choices were relative and there was no point of reference to right and wrong. This resulted in the death of reason.” (Defending Christianity in a Secular Culture, an Interview with Ravi Zacharias by Richard L. Schoonover, associate editor of Enrichment journal. 2009)

  • One of the natural consequences of have competing worldviews, is the term “competing”.  It obviously means there is competition to win people to a particular worldview and thus to maintain a truly neutral pluralistic society, new “rules” must be established to assure no one religion or worldview is “superior” to another theoretically giving each person in the secular society the freedom to choose and change their worldview at any time without repercussions from the society.  However, “theoretical” objectives rarely manifest in “reality”.  Thus we see the post-modern secular humanist worldview being the emergent worldview in today’s secular society.  This is not only in the United States, but has flourished to a much greater degree throughout Europe and other parts of the world.
  • One of the “rules” for true pluralism had to be the rejection of “absolutes”, otherwise a view or religion claiming to be absolute would elevate itself above the others.  Likewise, dogmatism is also rejected for the same reasons.  Christianity is both absolute and dogmatic and expressed by Jesus in John 14:6John 14:6
    English: World English Bible - WEB


    WP-Bible plugin
    where He said: “I am the truth, the way and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Me.”  Jesus didn’t say He was “a” truth, but “the” truth.  Using “a” would have been pluralistic, but “the” is exclusive, and such exclusivity cannot be tolerated in a secular society that claims “tolerance” as a fundamental principle.  Further, Jesus’ statement in John 14:6John 14:6
    English: World English Bible - WEB


    WP-Bible plugin
    is also dogmatic claiming there is no other way to the Father, or eternal life, except through Him alone.  Thus we have the dilemma of reconciling reason using the basic premise of the “law of non-contradiction”, that either Jesus is telling the absolute truth, or not.  If not, then Jesus is lying and the world is telling the truth.  If Jesus is not lying, then the world must be the one lying, both cannot be true.
  • For this reason, Ravi Zacharias said in the statement above that the absolutization of relativism got smuggled in because if it is absolutely true that all beliefs are relative, that that position in itself is an “absolute” and internally violates its own principle also called “internal inconsistency” in logic.  It is one of the tools used to determine the truth of a statement, and if there is internal inconsistency, then it cannot be absolutely true.  Thus, since Jesus’ statement has no internal inconsistency in its position, it logically is the true statement.

We see this post-modern secular humanist position even in key global documents being formulated and adopted by countries around the world.  Consider the opening paragraph of the Preamble of the Earth Charter:


First of all, one must ask “what is so critical about this moment in earth’s history vs. other times?”  Also note, that the word “Earth” is always capitalized as it is the deity of the naturalist.  Consider:

“…the future at once holds great peril and great promise.”   When in history did the future NOT hold both great peril and promise?  Did not the prospect of Christopher Columbus’ journeys to find new merchant routes hold great peril and great promise?  Finding, exploring and settling the “new world” of America held great peril and great promise.  Man going into space and exploring the moon held great peril and great promise. (“Examining the Earth Charter”, Tom Kendall (2002))

When we look at the evening news, we see Christians being persecuted in northern Iraq and throughout the Middle East and Africa.  We even see it to the level of genocide as we did in WWII Germany.  Now, that’s peril!  And if the world view is truly “pluralistic”, and all religious views and cultures are to be equally embraced, why are such atrocities allowed to continue at a time when cameras are recording everything?

Pluralism is all about “Human Rights” and “freedom” but where is the freedom for these Christians and what about their “human rights”?  This problem isn’t new, it’s been around a long time, we just haven’t heard much about it and it is certainly not taught in government classes in schools.  Consider:

Let’s look a bit further into what the international “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948. (Note: Information regarding this U.N. Resolution is quoted from, and can be found on the official U.N. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights web site at: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)


So far, it sounds like it is a very acceptable policy toward giving all people the basic rights of free speech, religion and free expression we have all been blessed with by the Constitution of the United States.   What sounds like the world was given the same basic human rights that we enjoy in the U.S., is taken away in Article 29.  It states:

Article 29

Oops!  You’re free to speak, think, worship and believe anything you want, as long as it does not disrespect the rights and freedoms of others, and isn’t contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.  The term “intolerance” is one often used in the politically correct vocabulary today to talk about one group violating the rights and disrespecting another group.  Stating that “Jesus is the only way” in front of a Muslim mosque, is “intolerant” and violates the principles set forth by the U.N.  A young man was arrested in Canada in the late 1990’s for doing just that and was sentenced to several years in a Canadian prison for “hate speech”.  Since that time, “hate speech legislation” has been introduced into the United States Congress and is still a topic of much debate.  We may see a similar revocation of our “free speech” revoked in the not to distant future. (“Examining the Earth Charter”, Tom Kendall (2002))

Pluralism is only a “theory”, and one that simply doesn’t work because there is no absolute basis for “truth”.  It would be great to allow all human beings the freedom to choose their own “religion” and beliefs, as God is the giver of “choice”.  That’s the main message of the Bible: Choose Jesus, or any other choice is not choosing Jesus.  The world does not like this because it is both dogmatic and absolute.  So is Jesus’ statement in John 14:6John 14:6
English: World English Bible - WEB


WP-Bible plugin

Another very interesting United Nations document is the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance Proclaimed and signed by the Member States of UNESCO on November, 16 1995.


I believe this provides adequate evidence that Pluralism is not a choice, it is a requirement, and claims of “truth” as in John 14:6John 14:6
English: World English Bible - WEB


WP-Bible plugin
are required to be “rejected”.  Considering our Constitution does not require the “separation of church and state”, but forbids the “State” to impose a religious worldview on our citizens, then requiring pluralism through secular humanism is a violation of Constitutional rights, as the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that “secular humanism” is in fact a “religion” recognized by our government and the courts.


In the same interview quoted earlier, Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias went on to explain Last is privatization, which is an accommodation to the religiously minded. If secularization and pluralization were going to hold sway, what does society do with the large number of people who are spiritually minded?”


  • Privatization simply means if you are going to believe these dogmatic absolutes, then “keep it to yourself” and out of the public view.  In recent years, we have seen law suits, threats of law suits, and even Supreme Court decisions affirming privatization and ordering the removal of virtually anything “Christian” out of the public’s view.  Crosses have been removed from along our roadways, nativity scenes removed from the public square at Christmas time, and even the word “Christmas” has been replaces with “winter holiday”.  Recently, even a private restaurant in South Carolina received national attention because they automatically gave customers a 15% discount on their meal if they prayed a blessing over it.  The “Freedom from Religion Foundation” threatened to sue them and they stopped offering the discount.
  • However, in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance”, other worldviews competing with Christianity have been virtually ignored by these groups so they would not “offend” them in any way.  Without the “competing” worldview of Christianity, reason gets lost because absolute truth has been lost.

We should also consider the evidence also found in the UNESCO Declaration of Principles on Tolerance

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one’s convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.

In other words: PRIVATIZATION is a requirement of our society, just like pluralism.  So do we really have the right to believe and worship as we please?  You decide based on the evidence.