The premise is simple, dividing opinions between statements of taste, such as "I prefer winter over summer" and "I love chocolate over strawberries" versus opinions grounded in technical, legal, or scientific expertise. Mr. Stokes premise is that of course you cannot argue about the first kind of opinions, they are a matter of personal taste. His issue is that our society is leaning more and more toward associating both types of opinions as unarguable, thus voiding the authority and power behind expert opinions.
The remainder of his article discusses the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, Meryl Dorey. She has no medical qualifications but is featured prominently in several media platforms arguing the anti-vaccine position. The author goes on to portray Ms. Dorey as unqualified to debate, publicly, the merits of vaccines, irregardless of her personal knowledge and experience. And there is the problem with this argument. Truth, respect, and authority are only granted via technical expertise and everyone else is regulated to the position of spectator. Should you be knowledgeable about your worldview positions, of course. A measured, studied approach, open to new data and experiences is a benchmark of the educated person. But truth is not just regulated to the world of academics, and the merit of human experience should be weighed as valuable as well.
In some ways this argument is a shrouded attempt to under-gird the authority of humanism. Humanists sought to create a citizenry that was capable of speaking and writing with eloquence and clarity, such bringing value to their civic life in communities and persuading others to virtuous and prudent actions. This was accomplished through the study of the humanities: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry, and moral philosophy. And this is where we need to separate humanism from secular humanism. Let's look at some of the differences in these philosophies.
Secular humanists believe that there is no absolute right or wrong. Everything depends on the situation. They also believe that values, morals, and ethics are determined by each person for him or herself. So intolerance is not to be tolerated! This is the world that we find ourselves occupying today. And that is why we find the triangle arguments of humanists, secular humanists, and Christians in the article referenced above.
The secular humanist believes that everyone has the right to believe or discard their own truths and since there is no absolutes, everyone's rights are the same.
The humanist believes that education and knowledge rule the day and that there is a hierarchy of authority based on the technical expertise awarded through education and expertise. Everyone's opinion is not equal and should not be weighed in the same manner.
The Christian believes that God has established absolute truth and is the source of all knowledge. His Word is the reigning authority in all matters and all men fall under the lordship of Jesus Christ. Every person has worth because everyone is a creation of God Almighty. Therefore everyone has merit and is worthy of respect.
So, how does this apply to Mr. Stokes article above? Like most situations, it is complicated. God's Word makes it clear that He sets up authority figures in our lives and unless their commands violate His Word are to be followed. But because of the worth of all men and women, each voice has merit and should be given respect in based on that commandment alone. A uneducated person stating the truth of God occupies a position of authority over a King with all the degrees and experience this world can afford.
The secular humanist is going to argue the position of Mr. Stokes, education and expertise raise the authority of the speaker above the common man who lacks the resources and knowledge that the educated man occupies.
The secular humanist position is probably the easiest to understand. Everyone has equal right to the truth and whatever you believe is your absolute truth. Sounds great until you take it to its ultimate conclusion, your rights and my rights are going to collide and then whose authority rules the day?
In closing, I agree with Mr. Stokes that society should be more educated about their beliefs. Ben Franklin foresaw this issue over 200 years ago. " . . A republic if you can keep it." But the greater issue is what education are you providing your society? If the belief in absolute truth keeps shrinking than the loudest voice wins the day. (Stop me when you've heard this before . . . ) To keep our republic is not even the greatest endeavor, to ensure the eternal location of our souls is the greatest issue every society has to decide for itself.
