WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.What Dillahunty doesn’t seem to understand is that this “agenda” was part of the “ethical foundation” of Christianity. What the modern, post-Dawkins/Hitchens atheist loves to do is run a hit job on Judeo-Christianity and theism by taking verses out of context and then blowing them up to make “sky daddy” seem like a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Calvin Candie. The onus of proof therefore falls on the Christian to explain the wider context of those quotes pulled out of the Bible in as much time as it took the atheist to read it. Needless to say, hermeneutics takes quite a bit longer than that — and, by default, atheism wins the debate even if what the atheist is spouting is illogical, deceptive and stupid. And, along the way, the atheist — or “secular humanist,” whatever you wish to call it — doesn’t have to provide a framework of his or her own. Wilson managed to turn the tables: If this is about an “ethical foundation,” let’s see where the ethical foundation of secular humanism — clearly ascendent in the West since the 20th century — has gotten us when it comes to human flourishing compared with a Judeo-Christian framework based on biblical principles. Hit with this, Dillahunty smeared his opponent as an agenda-pusher and walked out. Now, there are questions about whether these kinds of aggressive debate tactics benefit Christians in the end. The Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of the religious outlet Catholic Answers, has an excellent summation of what Christians can learn from the debate adopting these kinds of rhetorical methods and what the pitfalls can be, if you have 22 minutes to spare: However, no matter whether this is a positive apologetics strategy for Christians in winning the theological-cultural war with atheists, it’s instructive to see it at least once. “The Chronicles of Narnia” and “Mere Christianity” author C.S. Lewis put it a bit more gently when he wrote, “Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything.” Leaving aside the evidence for the existence of God for a second — and there’s certainly a heap of that, but rehashing it doesn’t get anyone anywhere if a person isn’t willing to listen to it — let’s look at secular humanism’s implied claim that Judeo-Christianity is barbaric and that secular humanism holds the key to an enlightened humanity where we all dance around the maypole celebrating nontheistic togetherness and directionless evolution. Except we don’t. Wilson merely scratched the surface. Late-term abortion, drug use, mass murder, dictatorship based on the cult of personality, existential meaningless and despair: This is the modern condition, brought to you courtesy of secular humanism. It cannot simply adopt the oppositional position and attack Christianity, especially not in the West. We’re seeing the fruits of this poison tree ripen in real time — and, if secular humanists want to claim the mantle of progress and light for themselves, they have to start by telling us why this state of affairs is both ethically good and conducive to human flourishing. People have eyes and ears, after all, and they know evil and mendacity when they see it. It’s time we start ensuring, as Christians, that those who have enabled it through their godless worldview own the consequences of their ethical framework.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.