Whenever religious “would-be critics” of Secular Humanism confront their adversaries, they most often encounter militant atheists who rarely disclose their true ideological stance. Indeed, atheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in any god. Yet, with few exceptions, the clever militant atheist keeps Secular Humanism tucked away in their back pocket as their actual creed.

Our would-be critic, unaware of their more cunning adversary’s true positions, is consequently forced into a reactive defense of their beliefs as they are intellectually pummeled. A product of our age, the critic experiences cognitive dissonance when confronted with science and reason—the very principles they have been enculturated to accept as valid foundations for belief.

Our would-be critic can be summed up in one phrase: ignorantly reactive, clinging to the corpse of a decaying worldview.

Ironically, the would-be critic is the slightly less educated, less cunning twin brother of the militant atheist. While the would-be critic accepts the militant atheist’s rational and scientific foundationalism, the militant atheist, in turn, embraces key tenets of the would-be critic’s decaying worldview—a mutual cross-acceptance.

Indeed, Secular Humanism is yet another philosophical Frankenstein—an attempt at a second resurrection, this time brought to life by science and reason.

Although, in theory, our militant atheist possesses the intellectual prowess to argue for Secular Humanism on their own, they are not present—so I shall offer an argument even greater than any yet presented: Secular Humanism rests not on a foundational belief in God, but on a foundation of human agency—necessary for moral action—oriented toward human flourishing under the guidance of science and reason. By relying on science and reason instead of God to establish an objective morality, Secular Humanists are freed from oppressive religious dogma that ultimately undermines human well-being. By relying on reason to establish free agency, Secular Humanists are empowered to enact their moral system in the world.

Now, let us examine this Frankenstein for signs of brain damage or coronary defects—aha, they are abundant!

We’ve heard the Secular Humanist’s characterological complaint against God. But what is their intellectual complaint? It goes: “Given the lack of scientific evidence for God, I declare Him not guilty of existing.” Yet why is free will—an essential prerequisite for evil, yet fundamentally at odds with the scientific worldview—not similarly declared “not guilty of existing”? Every moralist reasons backward from the conclusion that free will must exist, because to deny it would unravel the very foundations of good and evil.

Even the Compatibilist, in their desperation to salvage morality, declares that one is free so long as one acts according to one’s intrinsic reasons and desires. Yet, one does not freely reason or desire. Morals are not reasoned into existence. Furthermore, when one is said to be “responsive” to reason, it is not a unified self that responds, but rather one among many pre-existing and aligning unconscious wills. Accordingly, rational deliberation is little more than the exhaust of competing underlying wills.

Yet to the Compatibilist, mere responsiveness—even if deterministic—is enough to declare one “free and therefore moral,” so long as there is no external coercion. This, however, is a redefinition of free will.

What Compatibilists fail to admit—or perhaps fail to realize—is that the relationship between moral responsibility and free will is not definitional but logical; the claim that one should or shouldn’t act in a particular way logically implies the capacity to have acted otherwise.

Behold the true motive behind every rational justification of free will: free will must exist to designate actions as good or evil. Therefore, I declare that free will exists. But that’s not all—the Secular Humanist also seeks to grant themselves the logical freedom to make universally objective moral claims. On what grounds is their morality considered universal? The shared subjective experience of the unwashed masses?

Intellectual heavyweights like the Secular Humanists should know better than to conflate popular consensus with objective truth—unless, as is often the case when they cloak moralizing in the guise of rationality, they harbor ulterior motives: namely, to impose an otherwise unadmirable and unworthy philosophy.

What is the germ out of which Secular Humanism grew? It is the assertion that all humans hold equal intrinsic value. This assertion—once grounded in man’s supernatural origins—is now rooted in naturalistic Sentientism; the capacity to experience pleasure and pain. From this basis—and the assumption that well-being should be maximized by minimizing negative states and maximizing positive ones—the Secular Humanist begins attributing rights. If they are intellectually consistent, the Secular Humanist eventually devolves into a toothless moralizing vegan.

The egalitarians cry out, “Everyone should have an equal voice!” And in doing so, is it any wonder that modern literature has become so diluted?

The egalitarians cry out, “Everyone deserves an equal vote!” And in doing so, is it any wonder that politicians—driven to appeal to the lowest common denominator—appear foolish and incompetent?

The egalitarians cry out, “Everyone deserves an education!” And in doing so, is it any wonder that our educational institutions are now infested with dullards?

The egalitarians cry out, “Everyone deserves to be included!” And in doing so, have we not elevated the last to the first—and diminished the first to the last?

The egalitarians cry out, “Everyone deserves equal respect!” And in doing so, is it any wonder that calls to excellence seldom take root beyond rocky soil?

Alas—we come to the Secular Humanist as a person. Let us uncloak them!

In truth, for the Secular Humanist, science and reason were never tools to discover a neutrally objective source of morality—because they forbid science and reason from arriving at elitist moral interpretations. Instead, science and reason must be wielded by and for the weak. Behind their veneer of intellectual grandeur lies the same characterological impotence as their twin brother—the would-be critic.

Under their ethos, well-being must never come at the expense of others. Yet struggling, expanding, and overcoming oneself and the world—the very processes that give life meaning—necessarily exclude and come at the expense of at least some.

Fundamentally, as with any morality imposed as objective and universal, it denies man’s intrinsic nature and is, accordingly, anti-life—anti-human!