There is no existential difference between monotheism and secular humanism. They are two sides of the same coin, minted in the myth of “Progress”.

One side believes in moral codes written in stone and enforced by the followers of a jealous god.

The other in revolutionary power words, “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!” and enforced with the guillotine and gulag.

One sees man as sinful, in need of salvation; the other sees man as ignorant, in need of enlightenment. Both have an apocalyptic view of the future though only one side welcomes it, believing that equality can only be achieved by the love of God through final judgment. The other judges man by a love for equality, believing it to be the only way to avoid final destruction.

Secular humanism rejects all talk of Heaven and New Creation as the stuff of ignorant superstition. Yet humanism mirrors it with the liberal, Marxist myth that mankind’s ultimate destiny is to transcend our imperfections and create an utopia on earth.

You might say that one side is more violent than the other; that one is more loving than the other; that one is more morally virtuous than the other; that one is better attested to by science than the other. But of course, those are subjective assessments determined by whether you prefer “heads” or “tails”.

I do not say all this to make some immodest Hallmark card appeal for tolerance and a “Why can’t we all just get along?” sensibility. Rather, my point is that heads can never be tails, and tails can never be heads. As a society, we land with only one side facing up.

The other lies unseen, facedown in the mud.

Secular humanists justify their rejection of traditional monotheism, first, by saying it is man-made, coercive poppycock, made up to control human behaviour. And then by denouncing these fictions as obstacles to society’s progress to higher levels of spiritual consciousness, particularly within the realms of racial, gender and sexual morality.

Traditional monotheism is coercive and claims this right from the might of God. However, the threat of force undergirds every rule, law or Constitutional document ever composed. Are not the Enlightment’s commitments to “Liberty”, “Diversity” and “Equality” not simply godless versions of the same coercions, imposed by one group’s vision of a good society upon another?

We are told that mankind is making progress by the breaking down of old prejudices and moral tyrannies. What is actually happening is that the West is enduring the destruction of the old order and replacement by new tyrannies, new moral masters that will enslave human thought with their version of what is good, true and beautiful.

Justice, then, is surely the plaything of the strong. It is not found in the blood of martyrs; it is found at the edge of the blade that kills them.

Like the Gospel that preceded it, the secular commitment to progressive virtues are sacred, sanctified, privileged lies, written by those powerful enough to exert their unequal influence over those unfit to oppose them.

For once we abandon all notions of divine moral mandates and accept Nature is reality, what are laws, moral codes and rules but man-made fantasies built on castles of air, enforced by the weapons of the mighty?

Do not mistake or misrepresent me as arguing for the “good ol’ days” of the subjugation of women and minorities. I am simply pointing out that if one dares empty oneself of all philosophical idealism and religious teaching and stares into the abyss with open eyes and a stout heart, it becomes evident that the humanist doctrine of “progress” is a pseudo-religious myth, or cover story, for change that is brought about only by appeal to the one moral law that truly exists within nature: Might is Right.

• Stephen Notman is a barrister, writer, and College lecturer.