Addressing the Great American Divide – Part One
The results of the United States 2016 Presidential election have undeniably sent shock waves
around the world, the impact of which we are only beginning to feel, and we will continue to
feel for many years to come.
Without a Biblical worldview, it would be impossible to see this major shifting as anything other
than destructive. Perhaps this explains the reactions of some in America—they are reacting from a
basis of fear instead of a solid foundation of faith, based on truth. If this is you—if you are fearful
about the condition of the world and the clashes of ideologies that are creating tremendous divide,
I seek to reason with you and help you find hope. Even if at this point you’re not the least inclined to
believe the claims of the Bible, I still believe you can find a path to hope with what I present, if you
have an open mind.
The basic essentials to truly experience unity are: to not demand uniformity, and to choose to
display mutual respect. We can be unified in our goals, while espousing different means to achieve
them. But we cannot achieve unity without respect for those with differing points of view. It is my
deepest desire that we properly engage in respectful dialogue with emotions kept in check
in order to first agree on our goals. Then from there we can consider the methods for accomplishing
them.
Humanist Worldview
When we view the world from the world’s perspective, we will never find any hope. Let me illustrate
from the humanistic viewpoint, one that believes human kind is the highest existing authority. With
that view, the only hope we have is the belief that mankind is inherently good. Many highly
intelligent and well-educated people believe matters to be true that with proper scrutiny are proven to
be false. Belief that mankind is inherently good is one such claim that needs to be examined.
Mankind has repeatedly proven since the beginning of time that, left to our own, we will always
cooperate with self-serving ways that lead to the destruction of others. Aside from the Bible, there is
ample historical evidence that humans are inherently self-serving and willing to bring destruction on
others.
It is, therefore, reasonable to first ask if the belief that humanity is inherently good is valid or not.
This belief has long been one of major debate, leading to a third humanistic claim: “Human nature is
not one thing, neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ overall. People in general have been genetically endowed by
evolution with a wide variety of tendencies and capacities that respond to—but are not necessarily
controlled or determined by—their environment. And so, we see all sorts of individual and cultural
behaviors, providing evidence to defend virtually any assertions about ‘human nature,”1 (emphasis added).
The vast majority of humanists believe that the origin of all that exists was caused by a chaotic,
cosmic explosion that resulted in the order we have today over billions of years of evolution. This, in
my opinion, is another claim that needs to be examined for its accuracy, which I’ll explore in a future
article. But in the present quest for hope, if humanity is the highest order of intelligence, and we
evolved from an explosion, and when we die we cease to exist, where is there any hope? Humanism
offers nothing to explain the universal human desire for eternity, or the basis for which anything is
determined morally good or morally bad.
“Humanism is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than
divine or supernatural matters. [The vast majority of humanists, do not believe in the existence of
God.] Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common
human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.” Note the words potential used
specific to human value and goodness. Also, note the necessity of seeking rational ways of solving human
problems.2
Considering Morality
Human potential, from any point of view, including the humanistic perspective, can go either way.
The potential for human beings is to produce what is good and beneficial or what is bad and
destructive. While the concepts of what is good and what is bad may vary from culture to culture,
there remains a universal commonality for the majority of humanity regarding what is morally good
or morally bad. For example, most believe that lying is bad and truth is good. Most believe that
murder of the innocent is bad. Most believe that saving lives is good. Again, if we originated from a
cosmic explosion, where do the universal moral concepts of good and bad come from? What inspires
humanity to make such determination?
For humans to be willing to find mutual rational thought in order to resolve common human
problems, we must first agree on what is good and what is bad. On what basis can we begin any
rational discourse to solve common human problems? I purport that the basis must be truth. And I’ll
add that until we discover actual truth, morality is up for grabs.
Ah, but even the concept of truth has come under scrutiny with many people today believing that
truth is relative, and therefore not absolute. I explore this in my book, Examine Your Faith! Finding
Truth in a World of Lies (Protocol Ltd. Revised 2015). But for this article, I’ll get to the final
analysis.
Those who claim that truth is relative would state, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” But to
make that claim is to rely on the law of absolutes. To say there is no such thing as absolute truth, is
making an absolute statement. So, the simple truth-test is three part:
1. The truth always lines up with reality.
2. Only one thing can be true; all opposing matters are false.
3. The truth is universal.
When all three tests are in place, we can be confident a matter is true—meaning it is worthy of our
complete trust.
When we successfully arrive at a common definition of what is true and therefore good, only then
can we enter into any rational dialogue with hopes of resolving common human problems. When the
exploration of solutions is conducted with mutual respect and a true desire to arrive at what is good
for the vast majority of people, then we overcome our self-serving nature and transcend to a mode of
achieving what is beneficial for ourselves and for others.
The next part of this article will explore ways we can more successfully engage in dialogue to
ultimately bridge the divide in our country and increase our hope for experiencing more of what is
good.
Footnotes:
1. Evolutionary Life, “Are Humans Naturally Good or Bad?” (May 2007),
http://www.cointelligence.org/newslet..., January 31, 2017.
2. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid...
