The Power and Effectiveness of Good Ridicule

Since believing scholars are really good at defending the indefensible with their pseudo-scholarship, honest uncommitted seekers who read our debates might go away thinking each side has some good points, or that they're a wash. That being said, can anyone imagine a Christian scholar ever abandoning the Christian faith? Can you imagine that happening to William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, Norman Geisler, Douglas Groothuis, Craig Bloomberg, Michael Licona, David Wood, Mary Jo Sharp, Daniel Wallace, Ben Witherington, Matthew Flannagan, Steven B. Cowan, William Dembski, Scott Sullivan, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, H. Wayne House, Dennis W. Jowers, Gregory Ganssle, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stewart Goetz, Richard Swinburne, R. Douglas Gevett, N.T. Wright, Craig Evans, Francis Beckwith, Dinesh D'Souza, Craig Hazen, Peter Kreeft, David Marshall, Vic Reppert, Thomas Howe, Richard Howe, Craig Blaising, Randal Rauser, Greg Koukl, David Beck, David K. Clark, James Sennett, Thomas Talbott, Paul K. Moser, Abdu Murray, Timothy Keller and many others? I honestly can't. They will all die in their faith no matter what we throw at them. They are impervious to reason, so politely discussing/debating them will not change their minds, ever. We argue with them mainly to reach honest uncommitted seekers, and that's it. They are the goal, the prize.

The power and effectiveness of good ridicule is that it by-passes this perceived stalemate between us. Christian scholars are the last ones to give up their faith because they're the most indoctrinated. They have the most to lose if they abandon it. So we need not gain their approval before we turn to ridicule. We need not reason with them because they cannot be reasoned with. We know they're delusional. So ridicule helps honest uncommitted seekers to understand what non-believers really think. Taking Christian pseudo-scholarly arguments seriously (while needed) does not convey how abysmal we think their arguments really are. To be sure, I don't ridicule Christian scholars very often. But I do seek to justify the use of ridicule for those who do it well. [See tag "Ridicule" for more].


Anonymous said...

The shoe is on the other foot, John. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

You challenged Christians on the effect Christianity has had on women. I responded by systematically proving, from sociology, history, a massive UN study, and the Scriptures of many religions, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has demonstrably and massively liberated women. (Search "How Jesus Liberates Women." It's a long series, NO successful rebuttals yet, or anything like it.)

From you? Crickets. Repeat empty claim. More crickets. Repeat empty claim.

Same thing with the OTF. No one thinks you won our debate, no one I have heard from yet, anyway. What is certain, is that you have never answered my real arguments, or admitted the real facts that I raise. Instead, you misrepresent my arguments -- pretending, for instance, that the first is that "Christianity is successful, so it is true" -- and just ignore most of them.

And that's been the general pattern, in MY experience. Can't speak for others. Craig knows you don't put on a good show on the stage, so he ignores your request for a debate, understandably.

David Marshall said...

Sorry, didn't mean to post without my name. Let me try again.