Doug Wilson is a model of responsible discourse. With entire books dedicated, not only to debate and responsible discourse, but even to sarcasm’s role in responsible discourse (A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking), Wilson is a case study in discourse. Wilson sees satire as a tool that God has given to his people for use in responsible discourse, especially in pointing out the flaws in the arguments of others. In “A Little Something Called Context,” Wilson writes about Sam Harris, the famous atheist,
Sam Harris, aspiring scientist and indignation impresario, is promoting this project, in order to advance the sweet voice of reason. You can look at a really cool graphic they have put together here. The base line represents all the verses of the Bible, and the red lines all arch, like so many mortar shots, to the location of another verse, with which it is supposed to collide. You can then tell at a glance that the Bible is just full of contradictions. The night sky is lit up with them. A really cool graphic is necessary to illustrate this because today’s street smart youth know that iPhone apps have dispensed with the need for actual arguments and textual study, you know, the kind with books.
Recognizing the many fallacies in the argument of Harris and his followers, Wilson believes it best to respond in a manner that points out, not only their mistakes, but the absolute ridiculous nature of their reasoning. Some arguments simply are not worth deep discourse.
Proverbs 26:5 encourages, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Often, the fool is encouraged when his arguments are given the privilege of thought and investment of time by his detractors. Rather than debunking the fool, the fact that Christians take him seriously is all that is needed to encourage the fool to continue making absurd statements and attacking Christianity with weak attempts at reasonable dialogue.
Our politically correct culture discourages satire and sarcasm because such interaction is not considered sensitive. Insensitive as it may be, however, sarcasm gives an opportunity for Christians to show the absolute absurdity of the arguments that often come from the nay-sayers and God-haters. In Wilson’s case above, the very nature of the graphic that has been created reveals something of the audience to which Harris and others are attempting to appeal. Rather than engaging a community of people with responsible discourse and carefully crafted logic, Harris and his colleagues hope to appeal to emotion and aesthetics. Wilson’s response shows that their argument is not only wrong, but that their approach is utterly preposterous.
