“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” – Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007)
I guess you won’t be shocked when I write that Vonnegut, the great American writer of such renowned novels as Slaughterhouse Five and Breakfast of Champions, was not a fan of “religion”.
At various times in his life, he described himself as an agnostic and an atheist and, according to Wikipedia, believed people were motivated to join religions out of loneliness.
Who knows, maybe that’s true for some people. But that’s a debate for another essay. What intrigued me about this quote (posted on Twitter by the Huffington Post online newspaper) is Vonnegut’s notion of behaving “decently”.
We all have ideas about what that means and I’m sure some of those ideas are the same – don’t kill anyone or set their house on fire, patiently wait while seniors cross the intersection, help someone get their car out of the snow, etc.
But — and this is a pretty big ‘but’ — do you really want to place all your hopes on these commonalities? Consider just these few examples:
- It was only 200 years ago when behaving “decently” meant not whipping your slaves.
- Only 50 years ago, behaving “decently” included putting aboriginal children into residential schools, where they were stripped of their culture and often abused, sexually and physically.
- And right now, there are cultures where it’s considered decent behaviour to persecute Christians, throw homosexual people in jail and stone women who are accused of adultery.
My point? I can’t trust “humanists”, people of faith or even ME to figure out what is truly decent behaviour.
That’s just one reason why I became a Christian. Those of us who follow Jesus Christ — who serious Christians, and many others, believe is the son of God — know we can trust His ideas about decent behaviour, because we know those ideas came straight from His father.
And those ideas, however difficult some may be (I’m still working on loving my enemies, for example) are as meaningful and truthful today as they were 2,000 years ago.
What about Vonnegut’s assertion about “expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead”? Well, I’m not about to deny that this is part of my motivation for following Jesus. I want eternal life in Heaven, with Him. And I’m not the least bit shy about saying so.
But that’s definitely NOT my prime motivation for following Jesus and his ideas about decent behaviour. I do it because He knows better than I do about what’s wrong and right. And I can trust Him because like other serious Christians, I believe He died to make up for all the wrong things I’ve done and all the right things I’ve failed to do. Then he came back to life to defeat the power of death for all time.
What He’s done is a glorious gift that I’m glad to accept. That same gift is offered to you, too. Are you interested in thinking about it? Post your thoughts below and let’s have a conversation.
Frank's Cottage 
The human interpretation of “decency” ebbs and flows with each passing generation. I’d much rather rely on the unchanging nature and teachings of our God, manifested in His Son, Jesus. The gift of His love changed my life and my life’s direction. I pray you reach many with this post, Frank.
Blessings!
Thanks for the thoughtful words, Martha. 🙂
“I’d much rather rely on the unchanging nature and teachings of our God, manifested in His Son, Jesus. ”
You must be kidding. Have you not read your bible?
Have you not read the passages regarding slavery, rape, and genocide?
You can’t simultaneously claim that the New Testament represents a “new covenant” while continuing to state that god’s morality is unchanging.
You need to pick one of the two.
Please leave Martha alone and attack ME instead.
Pastor/author/professor Mark Buchanan answers you like this:
The New Testament in several places explicitly, unabashedly contrasts Jesus and the New Covenant with Moses and the Old (John 1:1-18, 2 Corinthians 3:7-18, all of Hebrews, and more). Jesus Himself makes much of this (Matthew 5:17-48). “Moses,” John says, “gave us the law. Jesus Christ has given us grace and truth.” And then John adds pointedly, “No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father’s side. He has shown us what God is like” (John 1:17-18, NIRV).
So God’s morality is not unchanging.
morality is constant. It IS no different than when early man began to organize into groups and eventually societies. There was behavior that was conducive to civil relations and survival and behavior that was counter to that.
Defining it any further than that is an exercise in micro-management. Attributing it to any agent is unnecessary. We are here. We are together. We are dependent on each other. We must be civil and supporting of each other–not for reward-for we are not children who cannot grasp the concept of an act being the reward in itself.
Thanks for your thoughts, Stoic. I think this is one of those agree-to-disagree moments. 🙂
For shame, Frank.
All three of the examples you cited have their roots in religious thinking.
For you to blame humanist philosophy for actions which are diametrically opposed to humanist philosophy is nothing short of dishonesty.
Shame on you for ignoring this statement at the end of those examples:
“I can’t trust “humanists”, people of faith or even ME to figure out what is truly decent behaviour.”
Then why did you use examples of theistic evil to illustrate humanist failings? Why not cite some examples of atrocities committed by humanists?
You mean atrocities committed by folks like Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, Bruce? I wasn’t interested in taking shots at atheists’ points of view.
Uhm… Frank, neither Stalin nor Mao were humanists.
Try again. But first learn the difference between atheism and humanism.
“Humanism” is a relatively new term that I’m pretty sure Stalin and Mao never heard during their lifetimes. and according to Wikipedia, it’s associated with secularism. So it’s a lot closer to atheism than anything else. Besides, aren’t you an atheist, Bruce?
Humanism dates back as far as the 1800s. Stalin and Mao were well educated, and probably aware of it. But they were communists, a worldview that glorifies the State above the individual, and which is the opposite of Humanism.
Atheism and Theism are statements of belief on a narrow topic. Christianity and Secular Humanism are worldviews.
I really shouldn’t have to explain these concepts to you.
… So, can you please use examples of atrocities committed by Secular Humanists when condemning Humanism? Is that too much to ask?
No, I can’t. Are you a secular humanist or an atheist, Bruce? I don’t know where you got the misguided notion that I’m opposed to humanists (in fact, I made only the barest mention of them in the essay), so I don’t know where you’re coming from with your comments.
Really? Heck, I think I could even come up with one for you.
I am an atheist and a secular humanist. But one can be an atheist without being a secular humanist, and just as one can be a theist without being a Christian.
I am truly astonished that you don’t know these concepts.
Bruce, I don’t think you’re even slightly astonished that I’m not fully “up” on secular humanism. Not many people I know throw that term around – and it’s not used in the media much, either.
I’m truly astonished that the secular humanists I’ve encountered have no interest in ever, ever finding even one point of commonality with Christians.
Then maybe you should learn something about topics before you write about them? And the first thing you should learn about Secular Humanism is that it holds that all humans have commonalities with each other.
What motivates you to write such bitter things about people you don’t even know?
I don’t call it “bitter” at all, Bruce. I could certainly ask the same question of you. And the post wasn’t about “secular humanists”. You’ve just picked up on that tiny bit of content to advance your viewpoint. And you should learn about the truth of Christianity – that it’s about a relationship, NOT about “religion” – before you comment on it.
No, this was certainly bitterness: “I’m truly astonished that the secular humanists I’ve encountered have no interest in ever, ever finding even one point of commonality with Christians.”
So you are being disingenuous in claiming that it was not.
You are also being dishonest about the nature of your post. You began with a humanist quote, and then flatly stated “My point? I can’t trust ‘humanists’, people of faith or even ME to figure out what is truly decent behaviour.”
Shame on you for lying, Frank. Especially when the evidence is clearly there for everyone to see.
I’m truly saddened that you want to think I’m lying. Based on that, it seems apparent this “conversation” is going nowhere. So if you want to think you’ve “won”, then go ahead. I’m hopeful that other, open-minded people will read the blog and the comments and thoughtfully consider a life of faith.