Secular Humanism is Superior to Christianity Debate

There could be cash waiting for you at FindMassMoney .gov. You might have checked before, but they're always updating names. So check again. The Mass State Treasury has over $3 billion in unclaimed property.

Maybe it's a long lost bank account, forgotten shares of a stock, or an old paycheck you somehow forgot to pick up. Some of it might be yours. There's a lot of money that could be yours, but you'll never know until you go.

So go to FindMassMoney .gov. That's FindMassMoney .gov.

Do you know how old your water heater is? If it's 10 to 15 years old, it may be time to switch to the savings, comfort, and reliability of a new high-efficiency model. Nobody wants to experience a breakdown.

So if your equipment is getting near the end of its lifespan, now is a great time to make the switch. Take advantage of National Grid's incentives and save up to $550 on select natural gas water heaters.

Learn more at ngrid .com slash ma-waterheating.

Program Introduction and Debate Setup

Welcome to the Wrap Report with Andrew Rappaport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications. This is the ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community. For more content, or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

Alright well welcome to another Wrap Report. I'm your host Andrew Rappaport, and as I said, we're going to play a debate that I had on another person's channel, Marlo from The Grace Truth Show. He's got a YouTube channel that does a lot of debates, really good stuff out there.

But on this debate, just pay attention, you're going to see that this person really was interested in a monologue. Steve did not want to have a debate. There were supposed to be three cross-examinations.

You're going to hear that he does a monologue during the first cross-examination. I chose to do a monologue as well, and do more of a rebuttal. And therefore, the second round, the moderator explained to him he's supposed to do cross-examination.

He does another monologue. He was very distracted. You're going to hear that the arrogance of his view, I believe. You're going to hear that he thinks he's right because he believes he's right. That's really what you end up seeing here.

And so, you be the judge how this went. But I hope this is helpful for you to see how to debate secular humanists. So here is my debate from the Gospel Truth Debate Channel.

Opening Introductions from the Moderator and Debaters

And let these guys introduce themselves. I have Andrew Rappaport, who I met online through Facebook and the whole nine. And he's actually been on my show before. And apparently, I didn't get this note, but apparently, when somebody bring him on the show, I'm supposed to get a book.

But he clarified that. I want a book, Andrew. And he clarified that statement that he said, well, I have to come on and talk about the subject matter of his book. And we didn't really talk about the subject matter of his book, so it's all good.

But I thought I'd get him on so I could get my book. I want my book, Andrew. But Andrew's a great guy. I mean, he's such a blessing. I learned a lot from watching his YouTube videos and everything. So I'm going to allow Andrew to come in and introduce himself, so he can express how much of a blessing he is to everybody.

Go ahead, Andrew. You got it, man.

You get a free book? Yeah, I want a free book, Andrew. You know, you shouldn't be Jewish like me. You have the understanding of the value of free. So I'm Andrew Rappaport. I am with Striving for Eternity Ministries.

And as I just said, I'm from a Jewish background. So I converted into Christianity. And I started the ministry because basically I look to disciple Christians to evangelize, to apologetics, better defend the faith in Christian living.

So I was a pastor at a Chinese American church for many years and stepped down from there and got into public speaking. And so not by choice, but that's what I ended up doing, because people were asking me to travel to speak at conferences and things.

So I travel around the world and speak, and I write books. I've got What Do They Believe?, which is a book on Western religions, the major Western religions. And then I have a book on What Do We Believe?, which is a book on Christian theology.

And I'm working on a book on the deity of Christ, the claims of the Christ through just the gospels. So we have, I do a lot of podcasting, as you know, but I have, I'm the executive director of the Christian Podcast Community.

So I have Andrew Rappaport's Rap Report, which is a weekly podcast. I have a daily Monday through Friday two minute podcast called Andrew Rappaport's Daily Rap Report. And then a more lively one is every Thursday night we do Apologetics Live, which is not a formal debate, although sometimes we do formal debates there.

But we have a two hour show where we have anyone comes in and asks whatever questions they have. This week I'm going to have Dr. Jason Lionel, astrophysicist, in. So if there's any people that ever wanted to ask him a question, you can come on in, just go to ApologeticsLive .com.

And then I have a podcast for podcasters, so you want to be a podcaster is the name of that one. So that's enough about me.

Alright, thank you, Andrew. Appreciate you once again for coming on and participating in this debate. Okay, Stephen, go ahead and give a quick introduction of yourself.

Hey, what's up? I'm Stephen Bunnell. People online call me Destiny. I stream on Twitch and I have a YouTube channel, both called Destiny. And I do video games and then politics and philosophy, which I'm guessing is why I'm here.

For the politics and philosophy, not the video games. And yeah, I guess spiritually I would be considered an atheist or an agnostic.

And yeah. Alright, thank you, Stephen. That's it, Stephen? That's all you're going to give me, Stephen? Yeah, that's right. Alright, cool. Thanks, Stephen. I appreciate you being here, man. I really do appreciate you taking time out of your schedule, man.

Debate Format and Opening Statements

Alright, fellas, so we're going to get this show on the road. Once again, I appreciate both of you coming on and participating in this debate. So with that said, let me go ahead and run down the format.

We're going to have a five to ten-minute opening statements. And then we're going to about a 60-minute discussion, which crossfire. Each participant will get a total of 30 minutes of crossfire. So after 10 minutes expire for one person, the next person gets 10 minutes until the expiration of the full crossfire time.

And then we'll go into closing statements. If I have any questions after the crossfire, I'll introduce those questions after the crossfire. But if I don't, we'll go right into the closing statements. And then we'll close out the debate from that point.

And then we'll head on out of here. Everything's cool with that? Yeah, sounds good.

Okay, sounds good. Sounds good. And afterwards, Stephen teaches me how to do some video gaming. Cool. Yeah, for sure. For sure.

You got to put us up on game on that, Steve. Come on, man. All right, with that said, Stephen, you are arguing the affirmative. Is secular humanism superior to Christianity? You are arguing the affirmative, so you go first with your opening statement.

Okay, so basically my position is that if we're going to make the best decisions about how to further human existence and human happiness, it's better to look at facts in an objective light or an objective manner.

So it's really important that we are taking a truthful look at the world around us and when it comes to spirituality, it seems like it's really hard to justify any type of supernatural claims about existence or what happens after existence or anything like that.

So my affirmative for secular humanism, I guess, is basically just an appeal to making sure that when we're doing investigations of the world around us, we're looking into what are the most fact-based positions so that we can make the best decisions possible to make people's lives better.

All right, all right. That is quick. Was that two minutes? Two minutes, Steve? All right. All right, Andrew, you got it, man. You can go ahead, go for your opening statement.

Thanks, Stephen, for coming in to have this debate and for Marlon for hosting it. Although that was a really short opening, I might go a little bit longer. Basically, here's the thing that we're going to see in this debate.

It is interesting because right off the bat, we see the talk about objectivity. Now, I asked for a definition of terms from Stephen, terms of what is superior secular humanism, Christianity. So superior, he's defined as better than secular humanism, as appreciation or love of humanity without the need of a higher power, Christianity, collection of beliefs inspired by the Bible.

I asked him a question of, do we have a free will? Are we just chemical entities, product of the brain? He said, nope, it's all just chemicals and causality, matey. So basically, I asked those questions for a reason to see if he believes in a free will.

We'll get to that in a bit. But here's what you end up seeing is we have to go to an objective standard. This debate is not, is secular humanism superior to Christianity to Stephen or others who agree with him?

That's not the debate. The debate is the question of, is secular humanism itself, by definition, better than Christianity? That's what Stephen's going to have to prove, but he has to do it from an objective standard.

And that's what's needed for this. Now, if we're just chemical reactions, there is no objective standard. You cannot appeal to an objective standard with saying everything's just chemicals. So you first need to have a standard to go by.

Now, we talk about the many things I anticipate that he will bring up. He's probably going to bring up many things that he's going to see in the Bible that are objectionable, that he's going to have. Now, the issue there is, by what standard is he appealing?

He's going to have to have the argument that he can prove his worldview even exists without relying on, well, God. He's going to have to be able to prove that things like knowledge, laws of logic, truth, morality, concepts.

You're hearing my voice. It is nothing but a vibration of air. But you understand the meanings of those words. If I suddenly start speaking Cantonese, I don't think many of you would understand that. You understand those concepts, but that's an immaterial thing.

He's got the burden to prove that's a material thing, because if there are immaterial entities, like I've mentioned, all these things he relies on, then the problem for him will be that his worldview itself relies on an immaterial source, because material matter cannot produce immaterial things.

Therefore, it needs an immaterial source. That immaterial source we'd refer to as God. Therefore, he would end up having a self-defeating worldview. Now, there's a reason I asked about free will. I want to give a lengthy quote in my opening from an article called, There Is No Such Thing As Free Will by Stephen Cave.

Why do I quote this? Because this is someone who would agree with Stephen's argument from his positions, but it also ends up revealing that the claims he's going to make against Christianity probably will actually make a worse claim when we read this article about his.

So, here's a lengthy quote. In 2002, two psychologists had a simple but brilliant idea. Instead of speculating about what might be, if people lost belief in their capacity to choose, they could run an experiment to find out.

So, Kayleen Voss, then at the University of Utah and Jonathan Schooler of the University of Pittsburgh, asked one group of participants to read a passage arguing that free will was an illusion, and the other group to read a passage that it was neutral on the topic.

Then they subjected the members of each group to a variety of temptations, and based on their behavior, would the differences of abstract physical beliefs influence people's decisions? Yes, indeed. When asked to take a math test, with cheating made easy, the group primed to see free will as illusionary proved more likely to peek at the answers.

When given the opportunity to steal, to take more money than they were due from an envelope of $1 coins, those that believed in free will had been more determined to pilfer. On a range of measures, Voss told me she and Schooner found that, quote, people who are induced to believe less in free will are more likely to behave in immorality, unquote.

It seems that when people stop believing we are free agents, they stop seeing themselves as blameworthy for their actions. Consequently, their actions, they act less responsible and give in to their baser instincts.

Voss emphasized that this result is not limited to the conceived conditions of their lab experiment, quote, you see the same effects with people who naturally believe more or less in free will, unquote, she said.

Another study, for instance, Voss and her colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisors' ratings.

Those who believe strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up for work on time, were more frequent, frequently the more, showed up on time more frequently and were rated, rated by their supervisors as more capable.

In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better projection of job performance than the established measurement, such as self-professed work ethic. Further, studies by Blomster and colleagues have linked the diminished belief in free will to stress extensive life's meaning.

Earlier this year, the researchers published a study showing that a weaker belief in free will correlates with poor academic performance. The list goes on. Believing that free will is an illusion has been shown to make people less creative and more likely to conform, less willing to learn from their mistakes and less grateful toward one another.

In every regard, it seems that when we embrace determinism, we indulge in the dark side. So that's a lengthy quote, but their conclusion was, the conclusion of the article was making the point we have to pretend like there's a free will.

Now, he's going to have to show how when we're just chemical reactions, all of the research that's been done is wrong. That would be my closing. That would be my opening.

All right. Thank you so much, Andrew. Thank you. Thank you also, Steve, for your opening statements. At this time, we'll be going to our cross-examination portion of the debate. All I ask is that we speak clearly and that we're able to give each other the proper responses and clear, concise questions.

With that said, Steve, you have the first 10 minutes of your cross-examination. Andrew.

Cross-Examination on Determinism, Logic, and Materialism

OK, so I'm just going to run down, I guess, the stuff I wrote down and I'll respond one at a time. So the first issue we're talking about related to determinism, we made a statement. If we're all just chemical reactions and there's no objective standard, I would say this is a non sequitur.

Even if we are all just chemical reactions, there could still be objective standards. So, for instance, if I roll a rock down a hill, there are objective standards by which I can measure, say, the harm caused by the rock on the way from the top to the bottom of the hill.

I don't need there to be any type of free will or any type of whatever of the rock to just have an objective standard by which to measure things. So so I reject that idea that if we are all just chemical reactions, we can't have some objective standard by which to measure things.

I think we absolutely can. The second thing, the idea about proving the laws of logic is a really common kind of presuppositional talking point. It's obvious I can't prove the laws of logic. I would argue that these are things that just appear to be granted a priori to us.

I can't really explain how they exist or why they exist. But when we get this fundamental or this foundational and I thought you run into a lot of the same problems. So if I ask if you ask me, well, can you prove, you know, the laws of identity or non contradiction, then I would say, well, no, I just kind of assume they're real.

And you say, aha, well, now your worldview is unjustified. I'll ask you, OK, well, how do you know they're real? You say, well, because God tells me, I'll say, well, how do you know that God is telling us?

Well, I just know because divine revelation. OK, so I call it a priori. You call it divine revelation. At the end of the day, we're in the same boat. The difference is I don't make any supernatural claims with my laws of logic.

You do make a lot of supernatural claims. Maybe not you generally, but are you specifically? But generally, a religious person does make a lot of supernatural claims with where they get their a priori revelations from.

So I prefer the simpler ones to the more complicated ones. We talk about immaterial things. You say concepts are immaterial things. I guess I disagree with that. I would argue that concepts don't really exist other than ideas in a human mind.

So, for instance, if I have a concept of a chair, if all of humanity is wiped out, that concept of a chair disappears. Because a chair is only a concept insofar as it's some collection of neurons that fire in people's brains when they bring up the concept of a chair.

It's not something that exists in an immaterial fashion that people draw from or can have information from. It's just kind of a shared language thing where we all talk to each other. We create these universal concepts and we kind of agree about them.

Even if I did, I would never grant that concepts are immaterial things that exist. But even if I did grant that, just because concepts were immaterial doesn't necessitate a free God as well. It doesn't necessitate a Christian God or any type of God, actually.

There are a multitude of immaterial worlds that we could imagine where these concepts come from. And plenty of these don't require any sort of God-like figure at all. It could be aliens. It could be the Matrix.

There's a trillion different ways. And the challenge for you there is always going to be, for what I ask, is how do you get information about said immaterial world? Because the only way you're going to be able to do it is from material sources.

So things like the Bible or a priest speaking to you, which are all things that have their own problems when it comes to verifying the validity of them. And then obviously the questions of how do they access these immaterial truths.

We talked about a bunch of experiments where people that are shown to have less free will are less likely to be moral. Obviously, I wouldn't contest the results of any of these. And in the Western world especially, I mean, we talk about free will a lot.

It's a really important thing for a lot of people. So it wouldn't surprise me that if you told them like, hey, by the way, free will maybe isn't really the way that you think it is, that people kind of like give up a lot in terms of how they view the world.

I mean, it's kind of similar to when every Christian that's made a journey to being an atheist has had a period in their lives where, oh, it feels like nothing matters because I've lost my religion and I don't have a way to evaluate what's good or bad or anything.

But, I mean, you get over it after a time and you learn that there are plenty of other ways that you can determine what is right or wrong. You don't need religion to do it. I imagine if you take free will away from people that you could probably walk them down the same path where, you know, initially they're going, oh, well, if I have no free will, I should just be evil anyway.

And then you realize, OK, well, hold on. If everybody acted this way, life would be pretty miserable and pretty horrible. Well, OK, even if I don't have free will, we can still act as though we do because humans engage with topics emotionally, not just intellectually.

Hey, Steve, do you want a rebuttal portion? Because it seems like you're doing a rebuttal instead of a cross-examination. If you want, we can add the rebuttal portion and then transition and take maybe 10 minutes off of the cross-examination portion or 20 minutes off the cross-examination portion and just give you and Andrew 10 minutes of rebuttal time.

Would that sound better? Yeah, if you want to do that. Yeah, that's fine. OK, yeah, I think I'll do that because it seems like you're rebuttaling what he's saying. So I'll give, after you're done, I'll give Andrew 10 minutes to rebut as well.

Yeah, OK, and then I'm done. That's all I have. That's all you have? OK. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was going to say, Marlon, you interrupted the man. OK, so you want me to do it? Yeah, you got it. So let me just put my clock back on for 10 minute rebuttal.

Rebuttal on Objective Standards and the Big Bang

OK. All right. So what you've seen so far in this is Stephen has yet to actually address the main issue of this debate. Is secular humanism superior to Christianity? He has yet to even attempt to do this.

Now, can I prove the laws of logic are not products of the human brain, not something that was discovered by people? Yes, I can very easily. You could take the second law of logic, which is a law of non-contradiction.

You can't have a and not a in the same time in the same way. Let's apply it to before there were any human beings, before there was even a universe. Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and the same way?

Well, you either have to say yes, and therefore you have contradictions. And I can say whatever I want. And it doesn't matter because in your world, contradictions exist. Or you have to say that, no, the laws of logic apply and therefore are not the product of a human brain.

Can we measure a rock objectively rolling? No, you cannot do that in a believing in subjectivity. When you believe that it's just chemical reactions, if you're going to do only way to measure the rock rolling is to have the same standard.

If he's using the metric system and I'm using a system of, you know, in America, guess what? We have a problem. Right. So you're not going to get the same measurement because you're using a different standard.

So if someone makes up a standard back years ago, they used to call a foot, you know, the length of the king's foot or, you know, a cubit was the length of the forearm. That's not an accurate way to measure.

So they needed an objective way to get consistent things. So it does have to be objective. He says concepts are something that he thinks could be in the brain. The issue there is the fact that I'm saying words, he's understanding them, he's saying words, I understand them.

That is something that is we're both understanding the concepts. So that is then that's an immaterial thing. However, when he talks about the, you know, he can imagine a world where these things could exist.

That's true. You could imagine a world like that. It's called a fairy tale. And that's what the world that I believe people that are human secularists believe in. They live in a fairy tale. They believe in a magical bang that exploded from nothing.

But then nothing was actually something exploded into everything. It defies all the laws that we actually have. And that's why they have to say that nothing was actually something. There's now been mathematically shown that it wasn't a singularity, but multiple singularities.

So they keep having to adjust their definitions for things. But the reality is that he has not shown yet that secular humanism in any way whatsoever is superior to Christianity.

OK, my rebuttal. Yeah, I guess now is the cross examination portion. So we can go ahead and ask each other questions. Real cool. So, yeah, Steve, you got to go ahead and cross examine Andrew for 10 minutes.

Cross-Examination on Science, Free Will, and Secular Humanism

OK, sure. Let me just run down these responses real quick. So I don't know if I would ever try to justify or I don't think I would need to justify secular humanism directly. Rather, what I would appeal to is the idea that if I want to make a good decision about any given environment, it's typically better to collect and analyze the information as best as possible.

So using whatever objective standards that I can use to measure like a particular thing. So if I have somebody that wants to use a fantastical measurement system or something that is drawing on concepts that nobody can verify, it seems like it would be very hard to make an accurate decision on how to deal with any given problem.

So, for example, let's say we have a sick person and one person wants to weigh, say, medical data, biological sciences, sociological data, income to figure out what's the best outcome for this person.

And another person wants to draw on immaterial concepts like, well, if we say prayers for them, they'll feel better. It's very hard to make for that other person to make an accurate assessment of what is the best path forward for the other person, for the actual sick person.

So I usually appeal to things that are somewhat like physically verifiable in order to say, well, these are the best decisions we can make. So when we talk about or if I were to talk about secular humanism versus Christianity, I would say, well, any type of secular ideology is going to be superior to a Christian one, because any time we can gather and analyze information in a more objective manner, it's going to be superior to somebody that's kind of inventing a story in order to give us prescriptive statements that may or may not be good.

But we can't really hold these to any type of objective standard because they're coming from, you know, like old religious texts or old religious law. A couple of the other random things talking about how could there have been non-contradiction before a universe?

I can't fathom what anything would have been like before the universe. I would challenge you to be able to do the same. I, yeah, I mean, I'm going to obviously I'm going to concede to say that there is a boundary to what we can know right now as people.

I don't even know if humans, given all a perfect information set of the universe, could know what the universe is like before the universe. But of course, I mean, I would I would pose the same challenge to you.

What does the world look like before God or any question like that? We could retreat back to the ground that, well, maybe God is eternal. Like I said, well, maybe the universe is eternal. We're kind of in the same boat again.

So we mentioned, like, can we measure a rock rolling objectively? And we said, well, of course not. What if people have two different systems of measurement? And then we give an example of two different systems of measurement.

But the problem is that even though that example is true, we still do use these measurements to compare things. Some people have metric systems. Some people use imperial systems. But somehow we still have found ways to reconcile our measurements so that we all kind of measure the same thing.

So it seemed by virtue of that own example that, well, yeah, we can obviously grab common measurement systems. We do it all the time. Concepts. So apparently we're having I'm not I'm not 100 percent sure what immaterial means.

And when we're talking about like we're saying words of understanding concepts, therefore things are immaterial. So my physicalist or materialist definition is that every phenomenon that arises can be traced to like physical causes.

So when I talk, some portion of my brain is being activated that is accessing concepts that I'm using to move my throat, my tongue and everything to vocalize a sound. You hear that sound and then you compare it to things that you understand in your own brain because you've been introduced to these concepts like language or other types of concepts.

And then you are able to, like, have these ideas in your mind. Nothing about the process of us communicating requires any sort of immaterial world or immaterial knowledge or anything of the sort. So I don't know where immaterial things have to come in for communication.

And then the final point is that, you know, we obviously point to the magical big bang that explains everything. I mean, obviously, science doesn't have an answer. Maybe it never will for how the universe started.

But I mean, it's just as much a fairy tale to say that God created everything as it is to say there is a big bang that created everything in the beginning of the universe. I mean, I don't think one of these things is is like super logical, like God made everything.

And the other one is super fantastical, like there's a big bang. And then like the final assertion, well, you have to keep adjusting things. I mean, that's how I would expect any good like investigatory tool to work.

You would want to keep adjusting your theories based on newly collected information. It's much better to do that than to have to pretend that things are never wrong, like with a religious text or to slowly say more and more things.

Well, that was symbolic. Well, that was symbolic. Because you later find out in a God of the gaps fashion that a lot of the old predictions or a lot of the things that some religious text said came to not be true or can't be validated in any way with the tools we have today.

OK, so. All right, my turn for. Yeah, go ahead, Andrew. You got 10 minutes for cross examination.

Cross-Examination on Objective Authority and the Origin of the Universe

OK, so the way we cross examination works is you ask me a question, I answer it. Yes, I ask you questions, you answer it. So, OK, yeah. Do you based on what you had said, do Christians use facts and observation?

Yeah, I would imagine everybody purports to. Yeah.

OK, so therefore it's not based on story and from an old book, like you said.

Well, no, those would be the facts and observations, right?

OK, because it seems like the basis of your argument is that secular humanism is better, as you had stated, because it's better to use facts and observation versus story. So the only way it could be better or superior is if that was true.

So if that's not true, then you still have yet to show how it's better. So how specifically is secular humanism superior to Christianity?

So if you ask, do Christians use facts and observations? I would say, well, they purport to use facts and observations, but their facts and observations tend to be non verifiable supernatural truths or things from like religious texts.

So I would say everybody uses facts and observations. But what I would challenge Christians on is the veracity of the facts and observations they use. So I would say that's like the problem with religious people is the facts and observations they lean into tend to be supernatural, unverifiable, immaterial things.

So that's sort of a priority of like secularism would come from the fact that ideally we don't rely on like supernatural truths, like things that we actually can understand.

But you just spent a good amount of time explaining that we don't know the beginning of the universe. We don't know how that is. So you are in a position that you have a science of the gaps. You show that you shove science in to say that science may have an answer, but you have just admitted that you have unverifiable conclusions that you make.

So you're saying, again, I'm going to ask the same question again till we get an answer. You keep showing that there's no basis in which secular humanism is superior to Christianity. Because the argument you just made earlier was that secular humanism is superior because Christianity has unverifiable things.

You've admitted that your worldview, secular humanism, has unverifiable facts. Okay, so now we're on the same boat. How is it superior?

Yeah, so this, I totally reject this. So you're saying that my problem is I say, well, Christianity is unverifiable claims. And then you turn it around and you say, well, you can't tell me how the universe started.

I don't think appealing to the hardest questions of all of science, like what may be literally the hardest question to ever answer, and then saying since you don't have an answer to that, all of your claims are just as unverifiable as mine.

I don't think the beginning of the universe is a question that we need to answer before we begin either an investigation locally of our own world, or trying to answer questions about how we should act in the world.

I don't think I needed an answer to how did the universe begin to know whether or not I say should murder somebody or should not murder somebody, or maybe to figure out what is the most effective medicine to heal somebody.

My problem with Christians isn't that they have some unverifiable claims. It's that they use these unverifiable claims to make judgments about the world on a daily basis. Scientists don't go around saying your car is going to start and turn on because the Big Bang happened.

Whereas Christians will say you ought to do this and this and this because this is what God is actively saying. I don't claim to have all of the answers of the universe, the Christian does, but I also don't claim that you need all the answers of the universe to make any type of prescriptive claim or to understand any of the world around us.

Okay, I don't know if at any point Stephen's going to actually answer questions that are asked or just do rabbit trails, so we'll try this again. See, the question Stephen is not what happens with it because the appeals to science are the same appeals Christians make.

Okay, the issue is the secular humanism that you're arguing for is just chemical reactions. That is directly based on, if you want to say, the creation of the universe. Therefore, you do have to answer that because you're saying it's just a product of evolution.

So if it's just all from just random chance and it's all chemical reactions and all the studies show that that's not better because when people believe what you're espousing, they're more likely to cheat, to steal, and to be immoral.

That doesn't sound superior to me or to any objective standard. So you said better was the standard of superior. I'm trying to find out how secular humanism, in what measurable way we can say secular humanism is superior to Christianity.

I'm still waiting. So I'll ask it again. How is secular humanism superior to Christianity?

Yeah, so I'll restate this. I guess if any part of this doesn't make sense, I can explain in particular. But I would say that secularism is superior to Christianity because I don't rely on unverifiable, unmeasurable statements to evaluate the world.

I'm never going to tell somebody that a certain level of prayer is going to cure somebody over like a medical product of some kind. I'm never going to tell somebody that they ought to do something because of some invisible guy or whatever that said something a long time ago.