A Critique of the Humanist Manifesto II: An Examination of Its Worldview and Sexual Ethics

Introduction

The Humanist Manifesto II is the second iteration of a historic humanist document from the American Humanist Association, whose tagline is “Good without a God.”¹ This horrendous statement should provide readers with adequate information about the association’s religious affiliation. Indeed, they have none and are even anti-theistic or atheistic and reject God. How does this rejection of God affect their ethical position? This brief paper will present and examine two articles from the Humanist Manifesto II and counter them with the faithful, Biblical alternative, demonstrating the frailty of the humanist ethical position compared to the Christian one.

Article Third: The Source of Ethics

The third article of the Humanist Manifesto II 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. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.²

This declaration is profoundly anti-Christian, for it rests human morality on reason and experience alone rather than God, the Creator and Orchestrator of all things, including human morality. In humanism, there is no need for God because humans are capable of moral thoughts, choices, and actions by their own autonomous will. In contrast, the Christian ethical position is methodologically understood in this way: 1) “ethics is grounded in the character, will and purposes of God,” 2) “God reveals [H]is character, will, and purposes for human beings in the Bible,” and 3) “the Bible is the primary source for moral norms for human life and conduct, including our understanding of sexuality and sexual conduct.”³ Therefore, morality is from God, and humans have been given the Word first to save them so they can act ethically good, a reality that the humanists reject,⁴ but also to guide them in morality. But what of those who do not have the Word? The Apostle Paul answers the thought-provoking question: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Rom. 2:14-15).⁵ It is for this reason that the humanists agree with the Christian condemnation of “vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization,”⁶ although they do not recognize this underlying cause.

Article Sixth: Sexual Ethics

The sixth article of the Humanist Manifesto II declares the following:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.⁷

While this statement may appear good and healthy, for it reflects Christian sentiments of not harming others, the value of intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty, it ultimately falls short of the Christian position. This shortcoming is for two reasons. First, it directly endorses abortion and divorce (birth control is far less debated within the Christian community than these two), and ignores the sanctity of human life and marriage. God made both the unborn child and the covenant of marriage good things, and “to kill the fruit in the mother’s womb is to injure the right to life that God has bestowed on the developing life… this is nothing but murder.”⁸ Likewise, to end a marriage apart from reasons such as abuse and infidelity is nothing but murder as well, for in the marriage covenant, two have become one, and this one is being put to death in divorce. Regarding this, Jesus states, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6). Second, the humanist manifesto does not agree with the Christian idea of submission to God’s will regarding his intended purpose and plan for human sexuality. That is, God made male and female, two genders and two sexualities, for the sake of unification and procreation. He did not say, “Do as you wish,” such as the manifesto suggests individuals to do. Instead, He provides the outline and composition for human sexuality directly from His Word.

Conclusion

In conclusion, humanists see ethical dilemmas as mere subjectivity and seek to define truth and goodness by themselves. At the same time, Christians know that God has already defined these things, given them to them in His Word, written them on their hearts, and made them capable of obeying Him through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The issue of right or wrong is not determined by feelings, desires, or situations, for “[t]he heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9), but by God, who has determined the ethical truths of His creation.

Bibliography

Magnuson, Ken. Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020.

The American Humanist Association. “Humanist Manifesto II.” 1973. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto2/

Footnotes

1. The American Humanist Association, “Humanist Manifesto II,” 1973, https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto2/ ↩

2. Ibid., Article Third. ↩

3. All three of these points are given in Ken Magnuson, Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020), 156. ↩

4. Humanist Manifesto II, Article Second. ↩

5. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016). ↩

6. Humanist Manifesto II, Article Third. ↩

7. Humanist Manifesto II, Article Sixth. ↩

8. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, qtd. in Magnuson, 329. ↩