Humanism and its Influence on the Issue of Global Warming


Author: Reid Ashbaucher  |  Date of Writing: March 2010

Note: The foot notes listing, “Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, prod., Doomsday Call Off (Toronto, ca: CBC Newsworld, 15 November 2005.) Five Part Documentary” can be found on YouTube, by using the following search term: “Doomsday Call Off part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5”


Humanism and its Influence on Science in American Society Today

Introduction

It appears that one dominant issue in the news today and around the world is the environment and more specifically, global warming. Within the scope of this paper, we will deal with the questions: “what should be the Christian’s world and life view on this issue?” In addition, which religion is the most influential in society with regard to this topic?

The outline of this paper will consist of the following elements for discussion: One, “Modern Humanism: Religion or Philosophy?” Two, “Modern Humanism and its influence on our educational system and the environment;” three, “A Christian’s World and Life View on Humanism and the Environment;” and finally a summary and conclusion.

There will only be one presupposition applied to this paper, which is the assumption that the canonized Scriptures are deemed the inerrant revelation from the only true God and creator of the heavens and the earth.

Modern Humanism: Religion or Philosophy?

According to the historical documents of the modern Humanist movement, the original 34 signers of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933) declared themselves to be religious humanist in article I.1 Dr. Wilson, one of the founders of the modern Humanist movement, states that at the time of drafting the first document Roy Wood Sellars was enlisted to write an interpretation of said document and was published in the same Journal as “A Humanist Manifesto;” entitled “Religious Humanism” (The New Humanist VI: 3:7-12).2 It is within Dr. Wilson’s book, that a reprint of both documents is made available demonstrating the historic intent of the original signers. There are fifteen articles listed in the Manifesto and portions will be referenced as the discussion progresses.

It is within “Manifesto I” that the signer’s original intent was expressed, which was to change the meaning of religion and bring forth a new religious philosophy. The paragraph prefacing the fifteen articles reads as follows:

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and his deeper appreciation of brotherhood have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is nonetheless obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:3

As the signers affirm in the above paragraph, their intent is expressed this way: “to establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:” The first two words in the first article are “Religious humanists”4 – identifying themselves under the label of religious.

In the year 1961 the United States Supreme Court wades in on the question concerning discrimination and religion. In footnote 11 of the case Torcaso v. Watkins, we read the following:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 Ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.5

It is evident from this citation that many organizations in 1961 recognized even Secular Humanism as a religion. From this point on the following Humanist Manifestos II (1973) and III (2003) tried to distance itself from the idea of being religious by position itself as a life stance in philosophy.6

This leaves us with the founders of the modern Humanist movement and their sanctioned interpretation of their document of 1933. Roy Wood Sellars, the man enlisted to give this interpretation lays out for us the historical foundation of how the movement saw the Christian religion and how they viewed God – giving explanation to their philosophy about God and life; we read the following with emphasis added:

Under the influence of science and philosophy many churches and churchmen became liberal. They found it impossible to accept any longer the account of creation in Genesis and agreed that historical investigation had shown it to be a mixture of early Semitic myth and priestly theology. In like manner, miracles were doubted as contrary to the idea of immanent orderliness in the world. Here there was a touch of deism in liberalism. In short, the traditional theology was censored and toned down so that it lost its dramatic and concrete character. It was decided that the old views must be taken symbolically rather than literally.

The result of this liberalizing and deliteralizing was what is usually called modernism. But, in spite of its relinquishments of what is regarded as cruder beliefs, modernism, also, had its fundamentals. As nearly as I can judge, these consist of a belief in a regnant God, the validity of prayer and worship, and the acceptance of personal immortality. In the eyes of the modernist these constitute the minimum of religious fundamentals. I would say that he is doubtful that religion in any real sense of the word can survive the defeat of these fundamentals of his. He is quite certain that, beyond this minimum, Christianity ceases to exist. In relinquishing Jesus as the Son of God, Unitarianism had already stepped, to all intents and purposes, beyond the pale. Theism, I take it, is the basic fundamental of modernism.

And it is here that the battle is waging. To the consternation of the theist the humanist has arisen on the religious horizon to challenge his fundamentals and to assert that the time is ripe for a candid and impartial survey of the situation and its possibilities in the light of modern knowledge. Has the God-idea any longer a basis in the universe as we know it? And, if not, what becomes of the religious attitudes of prayer and worship dependent upon it? And, finally, what is the present standing of the notion of an after-life, a notion bound up with the traditional dualism between mind and body? Are these beliefs and the attitudes and activities integral with them capable of maintaining themselves when confronted by the thought of today? Such questions as these constitute the crisis of liberal Christianity….

The question before us, then, is this, Are even the minimum theistic fundamentals tenable? The humanist says, No! He asserts that man must work out a new set of fundamentals and adjust his attitudes and expectations to them. Moreover, he maintains that these new fundamentals will be frankly naturalistic. Man is a child of nature, though a specially gifted child…. The psychological center of religion becomes for him intelligent forethought and purpose rather than petition and submission.

We may define religious humanism, accordingly, as religion adjusted to an intelligent naturalism. It is a religion in which man has become consciously the center of human thought and feeling. It is not a worship of an abstraction called humanity nor does it retain those traditional attitudes which are no longer relevant. It is religious because a concern for human values has always been the heart of religion. But it is a religion with a different perspective, a perspective based upon knowledge of man’s situation rather than upon ignorance and imagination….

We conclude that the humanist movement is a religious movement in that it is deeply concerned with the furtherance of human life along the lines indicated by reason and sympathetic intelligence. It is true that it represents a break with the traditional religious interpretation of life and the universe, but this is a sign of its vitality and novelty. If, as the humanist contends, the traditional religious interpretation of the world was illusory, the only manly thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and make a fresh start. Man must interpret and direct his life, for this is inseparable from the very activity of living. Thought-frames and beliefs have always been secondary to this necessity. They are variables while this is a constant, as constant as life itself. If some prefer to speak of humanism as a philosophy of life, I would not be averse. But the careful students of comparative religions inform us that religion has always been one with the people’s philosophy of life, with what they regarded as significant and imperative. The point is that the mists, fears, and hopes wrought of supernaturalism are vanishing. It is becoming daylight in the world. Man is at last beginning to understand himself and his situation, to know what he is “up against.”7 (Reprinted by permission of the American Humanist Association and the Humanist Press)

The interpretations as stated here are enlightening – declaring to us that religion in general is a philosophy of life – Christianity’s central doctrine is Christ as the Son of God and without this believe the Christian religion is dead. Finally, we read Roy Wood Sellars’ definition of Humanism: “We may define religious humanism, accordingly, as religion adjusted to an intelligent naturalism.” Naturalism is defined for us here by Jon Jacobs:

Naturalism is an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing. For much of the history of philosophy it has been widely held that philosophy involved a distinctive method, and could achieve knowledge distinct from that attained by the special sciences. Thus, metaphysics and epistemology have often jointly occupied a position of “first philosophy,” laying the necessary grounds for the understanding of reality and the justification of knowledge claims. Naturalism rejects philosophy’s claim to that special status. Whether in epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, or other areas, naturalism seeks to show that philosophical problems as traditionally conceived are ill-formulated and can be solved or displaced by appropriately naturalistic methods.8

By understanding these concepts we can begin to understand the direction and impact modern humanism has on today’s society. By focusing on these concepts, we shall see how this religion or “world and life view” was introduced to our society and how it has impacted societies view on the environment.

Modern Humanism and its Effects on Social Views

Modern Humanism as defined earlier directly ties itself to the philosophical idea of “naturalism.” This concept is again explained for us by David Papineau.

The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).9

With this religious philosophy in place, it then can be applied to the natural sciences as expressed here.

Of course, naturalist commitments of both ontological and methodological kinds can be significant in areas other than philosophy. The modern history of psychology, biology, social science and even physics itself can usefully be seen as hinging on the acceptance or rejection of naturalist ontological principles and methodological precepts. This entry, however, will be concerned solely with naturalist doctrines that are specific to philosophy.10

Modern Humanism is directly tied to naturalism which is then tied to the sciences, this then has become the central philosophy of the U.S. educational system as we shall explore in the following section.

Modern Humanism and its Influence on our Educational System and the Environment

Naturalism which Humanist’s hold to is divided into two categories: Methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and Ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism. It is Methodological naturalism we want to focus on. “The modern emphasis in methodological naturalism primarily originated in the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century.”11

Today, this philosophy, as developed by Modern Humanist, has entered the U.S. educational system. The history of this has been recorded and documented for us in Wikipedia the online encyclopedia as it states:

Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans “most truly human”. The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education William Torrey Harris, who’s “Five Windows of the Soul” (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for “development of the faculties”. Educational humanists believe that “the best studies, for the best kids” are “the best studies” for all kids.12

In combating this religious world and life view in the secondary classroom, David Noebel in his book Understanding the Times wrote: “Clearly, both Secular Humanism and Marxism are religious world views. Thus, in order to provide a just educational system for our young people, we must recognize that all world views have religious implications and that it is discriminatory to bar some world views and not others from the public classroom.”13

In evaluating Humanism as it relates to methodological naturalism, we find the element of supernaturalism is eliminated effectively neutralizing the concept of God and the effects of His presents. As this concept is taught in the classroom, God becomes a non-factor in evaluating philosophical or scientific concepts. This leads us to society’s attitude and approach to how they view their world and particularly how they view their science. This brings us to the concept of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.”

The Concept of Global Warming

We are told that man is influencing his climatic environment, and if we do not change the habits of man, we will bring upon ourselves catastrophic climate change. The question is “How did we come to these conclusions and is it possible for man to accomplish or cause this type of change within the earth’s climate system?”

In history, in the scientific community, when they did not have the understanding or empirical evidence to support unknowns, they allowed for the supernatural or for hidden variables contributed only to God. By the late Middle Ages, the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations.14

In November of 2005, the Canadian Broadcast Company (CBC) aired a documentary called “Doomsday Call Off.” This documentary was a five-part series providing an explanation of global warming issues and the response of top experts in their fields. Within this section, we will explore commentary and comments from these experts.

In condensed form, the story line goes like this: Greenhouse emissions are a natural phenomenon created by water vapor, CO² and the sun’s effects on the earth. The primary culprit of the natural greenhouse gases is water vapor. I.e. Water evaporation, rainfall, and activities associated with cloud cover. Within the science of greenhouse emissions falls CO² emissions, whose cycles naturally occur through human and plant activities. The natural greenhouse effect is good because it keeps us warmer rather than cooler. Within the past 100 years, there has been a slight rise in the earth’s temperatures and there are those advocating the culprit is, man-made, CO² emissions being trapped in the atmosphere causing the greenhouse effect to be holding the earth’s atmosphere at a high temperature. This documentary will document two theories held by most scientists – giving interviews with experts in their fields, explaining their findings, and expressing their views within their research.15

Within the testimony of Dr. Yern Peter Stephesin, a glaciologist, we are told that by measuring the temperatures of glacier ice, we can tell the earth’s history of past temperatures. Dr. Stephesin states the earth’s temperatures were 2.5 degrees higher 4000 years ago then they are now. Illustrating his findings on a graph, Dr. Stephesin shows that the earth’s temperatures have fluctuated up and down over the past 8000 years. He tells us that during the time of the Vikings (1000 A.D.) the earth’s temperatures were 1.5 degrees higher than they are now. He continues to show us that in 1875 the earths temperatures reached their lowest point in relationship to the past 8000 years, and just recently, say the past 125 years, these temperatures have been going up slightly.16

This evidence is important because it is the foundation of one side of global warming – the concept that the earth’s temperatures have been fluctuating up and down for thousands of years. On the other side, we have the work of Dr. Michael Mann, a professor at the University of Virginia who has contributed to the scientific model adopted by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Clement Change), which holds to what is referenced as the “hockey stick” model, demonstrated by a graph, showing temperatures staying constant for the past 1000 years, then in comparison to this past, climbing dramatically in the last 100 years.17 Thus, the debate on global warming is hinged on these two models. The CBC documentary is well done, and in the first three minutes, the arguments against global warming are summated by five experts in their fields who have studied this issue.

The purpose of this section is not to give a full explanation of global warming and all its intricacies, but to pull from the testimony of these experts their comments that relate to the concept that God has more to say in the earth’s design than the world gives Him credit for. Humanist likes to speak about the natural world and its system, so we shall look at scientific statements by some of these experts on the issue of global warming.

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University is an expert on sea-level changes and coastal evolution. His observations, as he studied the Maldives Islands in the Indian Ocean, showed sea levels around the islands 30 centimeters lower than past levels just 35 years earlier. This is significant because of calms made at the United Nations by President Clinton, which went like this if we do not act on the issue of global warming these islands will be lost due to the oceans rising by more than two feet.18

Within Dr. Morner’s comments, he made this interesting statement: “The rise in evaporation is the cause of becoming warmer somewhere. That’s interesting, that means if it gets more evaporation here over the Indian Ocean, somewhere else can get more precipitation, but you cannot have increased precipitation somewhere if you do not have increased evaporation somewhere else. And that is the balance of the globe!”19

Dr. John Christy an atmospheric physicist at the University of Alabama (Huntsville) made the following observations within his work: “The natural world has great capacity to relinquish the heat that carbon dioxide wants to trap, but is unable to because of so many processes in the natural world that allow the heat to escape. The world has many ways to keep a balance and has many avenues to do that with, and one of those is to let the heat escape to space and not build up in the atmosphere.”20

The significance of the phrase, “because of so many processes in the natural world,” is realized through Dr. David Legates work with the “Center for Climatic Research” at the University of Delaware as he focuses on computer generated climate models use by many scientists in relationship to this issue. Dr. Legates makes two observations: “Many of the processes that work in the climate work at a variety of scales that a computer model simply cannot resolve.” He goes on to state: “The problem is, we don’t have perfect knowledge how the earth’s system operates, so therefore, we are working with an incomplete understanding base – to try to put together what we know – to see if it, in fact, generates the correct conditions.”21

The significance of these statements lies with the understanding: “we do not know because of the complexity of the world system.” It seems that in the end, global warming as accepted by the IPCC is based not on scientific data, but on an assumption base on asking the wrong question. This incorrect foundational question is: “How likely is it?” This question was formulated by Dr. Mann in a lecture to students within this documentary.22

How does all this play into the effects of humanism in the world today? Our educational system has taken on the philosophy of the modern humanist as expressed in several of their articles of Manifesto I, that is, “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.”23 This, of course, stems from their view that, “religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”24 As this philosophy is expressed in our schools the result becomes a belief system that only sees natural laws with no other laws or forces backing them up. With this in mind the “Humanist Manifesto I” becomes reality for many as it is expressed in article thirteen:

Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.25

As we can see, humanists see themselves and the institutions they influence as responsible for all human life and the promotion of it, with no regard for any outside or supernatural influence. This brings us to the issue of global warming. Humanism influenced society’s views of nature as something they are physically and spiritually connected; thus, being the only intelligent life form inhabiting the planet; it is left up to humans to solve all problems associated with their lives. The result of this perspective is, when there is no understanding or logical solution to a natural problem, the fall back is always human logic. A perfect example was demonstrated for us in the documentary with Dr. Mann’s views based on logic, reasoning outside the facts of empirical data. The five other scientists looking at the data expressed an acknowledgment that even though they do not have all the facts, they see forces not yet understood controlling our environment. They have no understanding or reasoning behind the heat escaping into space, but they are willing to accept it based on the evidence. Why? It is my opinion that humanism has not influenced their way of thinking. It is okay not to have all the answers, and because of the complexity of our planet’s system, maybe there could be another answer outside themselves.

This brings us to the next section. What do the Scriptures say about this topic, and how should the Christian view be understood?

A Christian’s World and Life View on Humanism and the Environment.

Humanist believes that traditional Christian religion has no bearing on the environment and life in general – it is irrelevant and there are no other laws outside naturalism or natural law. This sounds like a good starting point to build the Christian’s view on this subject.

God’s Laws

When we speak of God’s laws, we think about the Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandments. However, there is another approach to this concept because God is the author and creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:1-3). He also is the controlling factor in all things. Therefore, anything God declares or speaks can also be understood as the governing law or power over all spiritual and natural laws that govern our lives. An example of this can be seen in two miracles Jesus performed for his disciples as recorded for us in Luke 5:6 and John 21:6. In each case, the same miracle was performed. Some of the disciples were professional fishermen who made their living catching fish in the natural world. Yet on both occasions after a full day’s work, caught nothing. Yet Jesus simply said, cast your nets on the other side of the boat and with their obedience found their nets overflowing with fish. By the will of the Son of God, the laws of nature seemed to change. If we follow Dr. Mann’s lead and base our assumption on, “how likely is that,” there should be ample proof that Jesus is God and has the power to control natural causes.

If we continue to follow this line of reasoning that God does exist and is the cause of all other causes, then by searching the Scriptures we would find the following concepts.

Creation of the environment

In Genesis chapters one and two, we find that God spoke and all things came into existence. Then just after God created man in His image, we read this in Genesis 2:9. “And out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow….” (NASB) Causation by God seems to be a major theme throughout the Scriptures as referenced by Job 38:4-38, Psalms 78:26, Psalms 33:9, Psalms 78:69, Psalms 96:5, Psalms 104:5, Psalms 119:90, Psalms 148:5, Ecclesiastes 3:11, Isaiah 45:18, Romans 1:20 and Hebrews 11:3 to mention a few. From these references we come to the understanding of the causation law; that God not only established this law for us in the natural world but also provides us the understanding that He is the cause of all other causes.

One law controlling all laws

Within the following references, we can find one major law working in our natural world. The Scriptures states that the earth was made to be inhabited. Isaiah 45:18: “For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), I am the LORD, and there is none else.” This principle coupled with Psalms 78:69, “And He built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has founded forever” (NASB). And Ecclesiastes 3:14: “I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him.” (NASB) These collective concepts demonstrate that within the natural world there is an underlining law which humanist understand, but fail to see its significance – the law of “eternalness.” This law is supported by a natural law discovered in the eighteenth century now know as the first law of thermodynamics which states: “The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.”26 In the end, this natural law tells us that the natural world, on its own, cannot create itself nor can man destroy it, but would require outside influence to cause destruction to itself which cannot be explained by man. Thus, we have a higher law called “eternalness” which can only come from a power equal to itself, God! Who declares himself to be eternal (Exod. 3:14, 15). According to Ecclesiastes, we should be at aw by this knowledge, but somehow miss the point that the universe is created using the same concepts shared with God’s very nature. In the end, because God is eternal so is his creation eternal.

This concept combined with the testimony of the scientists in our documentary seems to reflect that all the unknowns in our world’s natural system or our environment are part of the underlining law of “eternalness.” Can man affect certain elements of his environment such a global warming? If he could, then man found a way to violate the law of “eternalness,” which according to the data is highly unlikely.

Summary

Through this discussion, we have learned that humanism is a religious philosophy that entered our educational system and influenced its teachings. This perspective became the new view on life and scientific issues. As a result, we see our logical approaches and summation of facts end in logic without a God factor. Thus, limiting our understanding of our natural world and leading us into conclusions based on incomplete knowledge, with a willingness to accept blindly, the end results. In the end, we no longer search for truth based on God the creator, but except limited truth based on man’s pride of needing control of his own destiny.

It is fitting at this point in our discussion to allow God the last word in this summation as the Scriptures record for us the following:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

“Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements, since you know?
Or who stretched the line on it? “On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
“Or who enclosed the sea with doors,
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
When I made a cloud its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
And I placed boundaries on it,
And I set a bolt and doors,
And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop’?
“Have you ever in your life commanded the morning,
And caused the dawn to know its place;
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?27


Endnotes

  1. Edwin H. Wilson, Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto, [book on-line] (Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1995), Chapter 13; available from https://infidels.org/library/modern/edwin_wilson/ manifesto/ch13.html; Internet; accessed 3 February 2010.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961); available from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/; Internet; accessed 8 February 2010.
  6. Wikipedia the on Line Encyclopaedia, s.v. “Humanism (Life Stance)”; available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_(life_stance); Internet; accessed 8 February 2010.
  7. Wilson, Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto, (Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1995), Chapter 13.
  8. “Naturalism”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 19 April 2009 [data base on-line]; available from https://www.iep.utm.edu/naturali; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  9. “Naturalism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 22 February 2007 [database on-line]; available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#ModSciCauInf; Internet; accessed 9 February 2010.
  10. Ibid.
  11. Wikipedia the on Line Encyclopaedia, s.v. “Naturalism (Philosophy)” available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy); Internet; accessed 13 February 2010.
  12. Wikipedia the on Line Encyclopaedia, s.v. “Humanism (Educational Humanism)” available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Educational_humanism; Internet; accessed 13 February 2010.
  13. David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, rev 2d ed. (Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2006), 36.
  14. Wikipedia the on Line Encyclopaedia, s.v. “Naturalism (Philosophy)” available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy); Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  15. Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, prod., Doomsday Call Off (Toronto, ca: CBC Newsworld, 15 November 2005.) Five-Part Documentary available from option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/latestnavstart,12/; Internet; accessed 9 February 2010.
  16. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,7/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,141/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  19. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,142/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  20. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,9/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  21. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,143/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  22. Mortensen, Doomsday Call Off, available from component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,6/task,videodirectlink/id,9/; Internet; accessed 16 February 2010.
  23. Wilson, Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto, (Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1995), Chapter 13.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid.
  26. Wikipedia the on Line Encyclopaedia, s.v. “First Law of Thermodynamics” available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics; Internet; accessed 28 February 2010.
  27. Job 38:1-13 (NASB)

Works Cited

  1. Jacobs, Jon. “Naturalism”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 19 April 2009 [Database online]; Available from https://www.iep.utm.edu/naturali; INTERNET.
  2. Mortensen, Lars Oxfeldt. Doomsday Call Off. Toronto: CBC Newsworld, 2005. [Documentary video on-line] Available from; INTERNET.
  3. Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times. rev 2d ed. Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2006.
  4. Papineau, David. “Naturalism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 22 February 2007
    [database on-line]; Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/#ModSciCauInf; INTERNET.
  5. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).
  6. Wikipedia Encyclopaedia, s.v. “First Law of Thermodynamics” Encyclopedia on Line.
    Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics; INTERNET.
  7. ________, s.v. “Humanism (Educational Humanism)” [Encyclopedia on Line]
    Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Educational_humanism; INTERNET.
  8. ________, s.v. “Humanism (Life Stance)”. [Encyclopedia on Line]
    Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_(life_stance); INTERNET.
  9. ________, s.v. “Naturalism (Philosophy)”. [Encyclopedia on Line]
    Available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy); INTERNET.
  10. Wilson, Edwin H. Genesis of a Humanist Manifesto. Amherst: Humanist Press, 1995. [Book on Line] Available from https://infidels.org/library/modern/edwin_wilson/manifesto/ch13.html;
    INTERNET.

 

Total Page Visits: 3116 - Today Page Visits: 2
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments