Tag Archives: Secularism

Why Euthanasia Makes Sense

1 Reply

Recently, a Michigan student was using Google’s AI Chatbot Gemini to research challenges and solutions for aging adults when he got this response: “This is for you, human.  You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed.  You are a waste of time and resources.  You are a burden on society.  You are a drain on the earth.  You are a blight on the landscape.  You are a stain on the universe.  Please die.”

As shocking as this AI-generated response sounds, essentially encouraging suicide and euthanasia, it actually makes sense in the context of contemporary secularism.

The term, “euthanasia” comes from the combination of two Greek words, “good” and “death.”  It is an English transliteration of the notion that you can have a good death.  In the past, it was sometimes referred to as “mercy killing,” but the word “killing” had too many negative connotations, so a more recent referent is “death with dignity.”  This is a clever relabeling to make the notion that you are actively killing someone (perhaps even yourself) more palatable and morally praiseworthy.

As I hinted at above, one of the reasons euthanasia has become more accepted in our time is that we live in what has been called a “secular age.”  Unlike in premodern times, the basic mindset is oriented away from religion as publicly significant and toward the notion that things like political power, science and technology, secular education, and economic forces are the only publicly significant aspects of culture.  And in secularism, this is true, even if religion is still considered a (necessarily private) social good.

The result is a society where spiritual and religious concerns are largely unwelcome (implicitly and sometimes explicitly) in the public square.  Materialism becomes the only acceptable basis for determining societal policies.  Consequently, only material concerns (economic, political, technological, and educational) should be considered when making such decisions.  Public policy becomes only interested in what people can actively provide economically, politically, technically, and educationally to the common good.  We must be good for something and are only good for something insofar as we are able to contribute material goods to society.

In a purely material world where death is the end of existence, if we find ourselves infirm, imbecilic, in pain, or incapacitated, then our basic reason for living—subsidizing society’s gross domestic product—has been lost or severely inhibited.  If there is no reasonable prospect for regaining our usefulness and death only means eternal inexistence, then like an aging pet or a sick animal, going on living is not merely inconvenient, it’s embarrassing for yourself, cruel to others, and bad economics for society.  In short, euthanasia makes good social and economic sense, even to the one being euthanized.

That we should recoil in horror at the callous and flippant way such a view treats human life (our own included), and yet don’t, is a tragic illustration of the economic and materialistic age in which we live.  Rather than joyously affirming the infinite value each and every person has by virtue of being a divine image bearer, we have reduced ourselves to mere cogs in a grand but ultimately meaningless system of products and producers.  When we and those around us cease to produce more than we consume and when existence isn’t much fun anymore, why go on living?  The big (and presumably dreamless) sleep is clearly preferable when we reach our product expiration date.  In a world like this, euthanasia becomes a matter of “dignity,” “personal autonomy,” and even a duty to oneself and society as a whole.

This stands in stark contrast to understanding suffering and physical decline as a sin-induced tragic loss of capacity that gives others in society the opportunity to show unconditional love and Christlike care to those who desperately need and deserve it, even if they do not want and cannot see it for themselves.  It is a gravely sick and appallingly confused culture that only sees the strong and the productive as worthy of dignity and life and all others as essentially disposable.

Against this secular calculus, Christians ground human worth and dignity in the fact that every human being, by virtue of God’s creative action, is a divine image-bearer.  This is true regardless of our age, race, gender, capacity, or giftedness.  We honor God, ourselves, and others as worthy of respect because His image bestows on us infinite and eternal worth, irrespective of our social standing or societal productivity quotients.

And while Christians should be horrified and grieved at our growing cultural acceptance of assisted (and sometime even encouraged) suicide, we also have the responsibility to demonstrate concrete and sacrificial concern for the suffering, weak, and aging.  Indifference is complicity in a culture of death, and we must not merely stand against the tide with our words but also with our actions and our resources.

This recently came home to me in a very profound way as my relatives and I reflected on the death of my wife’s uncle who passed after a protracted and debilitating battle with dementia that lasted several years.  He was once a great and highly successful man, an air force officer and a wealthy senior commercial pilot, but the dementia stole his memory, his sensibility, and his ability to care for himself.  By the end, he was a mere shadow of the man he had once been.

Nevertheless, we all agreed that despite the exhausting difficulties associated with his care (especially for my mother-in-law), and the seeming pointlessness of extending the inevitable, he was honored, dignified, and humanized.  In addition, his caregivers became better persons through the process of loving and caring for one who could no longer provide proper appreciation or adequate care for himself.

It afforded a concrete illustration of the fact that love—true love—is not a storm of emotion but a daily, moment by moment sacrificial commitment to do what is kind and right for another, even when that kindness is not reciprocated or perhaps repaid with anger, aggression, and ingratitude.  This kind of deeply countercultural love is most clearly embodied in the person of Jesus Christ whose love was directed toward those who were not only unlovely, but unloving and hostile toward the One who loved and gave His life for them.

He is not only our model but our life-giving Savior who forgives and empowers us to do what is foolish and vain in the eyes of the world, but precious and beautiful in the eyes of our loving, kind, and gracious God.

When Stuff Is Not Enough

1 Reply

Indoor Market

Not long ago, the Obama administration claimed that any long-term resolution to the problems in the Middle East must primarily address the social, political, and especially economic systems that give rise to fanaticism.  This is a step in the right direction, and certainly an advance from the ideology that says we should just “bomb them back to the stone age.”  But the problems being addressed and the solutions brought to bear upon them are only partly right.

There is a consistent short-sightedness in western secularism that struggles to understand why people would give their lives for anything other than essentially material gains.  This is hardly surprising given its basic assumption that virtually all human behavior is fundamentally reducible to political and material explanations.  After all, when all that exists is matter and energy in its various forms, why look for something beyond the physical to live for and find hope and happiness in?

For secularism, any claim to a religious or metaphysical motivation can only be a smokescreen for the real reason for human behavior, namely the craving for possessions, passion, and position.  In the contemporary vernacular, we call this the pursuit of money, sex, and power.

There’s no question radical Muslims are interested in obtaining such things for themselves.  But to reduce all rationales solely to the physical is to miss critical aspects of humanity that are very often much more important than merely material ones.  In short, stuff is not enough because social, political, and economic systems have distinctly religious and spiritual components that cannot and must not be passed over as incidental or unimportant.

Because secularists often ignore or badly underestimate these determinative factors, they tend to “thin out” and miss the deeper and more complex features of human life systems.  If you disallow spiritual explanations because you do not think the spiritual realm is real or important, you will have a hard time explaining why someone would give their lives for the greater glory of their God (or gods).  And you will not appreciate the deeply spiritual side of human nature.

In view of this, it is tragically ironic that in the current conflict, Islamic militants are very clear about their distinctly religious motivations.  And yet, these motivations are frequently ignored or reinterpreted in socioeconomic terms in an attempt to provide more plausible secularist explanations for how thousands of young men and women can be so readily convinced to give their lives for essentially non-material gains.  But in the minds of these Muslims, they are not terrorists.  They are faithful followers of Allah, offering up their lives in unsullied service of him.

Western secularism has a hard time understanding fanaticism in part because it does not see an ultimate non-material set of reasons for living and dying for anything or anyone beyond this life.  Consequently, very few in the secular west are genuinely fanatical about anything.  As long as we can maintain a reasonable level of personal peace and affluence we remain anesthetized to the greater things beyond this life.

If there is any counterpart at all in the west today, it is the proponents of the “new sexuality.”  They are not terrorists, of course, but they are fanatics and will stop at nothing until absolutely everyone—to the last man, woman, and child—is either convinced or cajoled into affirming that the LGTBQIA movement is not merely permissible, but morally right.  But moral rights are not material; they are transcendent.  They lay claim to you whether you agree with them or not.

Thus, to permit a perspective and set of activities is one thing.  To demand acceptance and celebration of them is wholly another.  Fanatics are not interested in plurality.  They are interested in conformity.  But they want conformity because they think they are right, not merely because it offers certain material and social advantages.  Similarly, in Islam, the resolution to any moral question is clearly a religious and ideological one that cannot be settled by or reduced to purely pragmatic and material concerns.

G. K. Chesterton puts it best in The Everlasting Man when he states that secular socialists are “always stubbornly and stupidly repeating that men fight for material ends, without reflecting for a moment that the material ends are hardly ever material to the men who fight.” He goes on to astutely observe, “There is a religious war when two worlds meet; that is when two visions of the world meet; or in more modern language when two moral atmospheres meet. What is the one man’s breath is the other man’s poison. . . .”  Which is poison and which is breath and why?  The ultimate answer is not determined in a laboratory, through political showmanship, or even in the marketplace.  No, the solution that we seek must be sought and found elsewhere.

Yes, we live in a world at war, but contrary to secularist views, the enemies we engage are not merely material.  Ephesians 6:10-20 reminds us that our struggle with evil is not against flesh and blood.  It is, at its root, a spiritual battle.  The sooner we understand and embrace this, the better equipped we will be to face our real enemies with clarity, resolve, and effectiveness, using weapons that are not of this world but instead are divinely powerful for the destruction of godless fortresses and false ideologies—our own included.