Tempering The Inner Honey Badger
This week’s reading, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense by Gad Saad, critically examines the prevailing worldview and approach to life that the author attributes to leftist academia. Saad posits that there is an escalating crusade in society to concoct increasingly irrational departures from reason as a signal of progressive virtue.[1] He calls these irrational ideas “pathogens” that disable a person’s ability to think properly.[2] This claim challenges the intellectual foundations and motivations behind contemporary academic and societal trends, urging readers to reconsider the impact of such ideologies on common sense and rational discourse.
In the final blog of the semester, I will examine my convictions about modern thought, explore how my convictions are confirmed, and delve into how my convictions have been challenged due to interacting with The Parasitic Mind.
My Deeply Held Convictions
Throughout my lifetime, I have observed a significant transformation in Canadian culture, particularly in terms of worldview, values, and morality. Culturally, Canadian society was relatively conservative, but it has quickly shifted towards a progressive orientation. This cultural evolution is evident in the prevailing belief among many individuals that personal happiness is the paramount value for humanity.
Social issues such as abortion and medically assisted dying rights are now deeply embedded in the individual’s right to choose and pursue happiness. A notable example of this shift is the substantial increase in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). In 2023, there were 15,343 MAID deaths, which accounted for one in every twenty deaths in our country. [3] This statistic underscores the growing acceptance and implementation of policies that prioritize individual autonomy and happiness in matters of life and death.
Additionally, discussions surrounding human sexuality often neglect scientific arguments. In honest and inquisitive conversations with individuals, when I request empirical evidence to support views that diverge from a traditional, biblical sexual ethic, the responses frequently lack rationality. Instead of presenting empirical data or well-founded scientific reasoning, many individuals resort to subjective arguments. This tendency highlights a broader cultural shift where subjective experiences and personal beliefs are often prioritized over objective scientific arguments. While “lived experience” is a valid form of evidence, the term seems overrides any other evidence and often shuts down discussion. “My truth” is the trump card that wins every argument.
My Convictions Confirmed
My convictions arise from both a commitment to rational argument and from my experience as a leader. I consistently run into arguments that are irrational regarding multiple issues.
I am aligned with Saad that our society has embraced an irrational approach to its worldview and has departed from values of the Enlightenment. He attributes this to multiple societal forces. Saad elucidates, “Such forces include political correctness (as enforced by the thought police, the language police, and social justice warriors), postmodernism, radical feminism, social constructivism, cultural and moral relativism, and the culture of perpetual offense and victimhood (microaggressions, trigger warnings, and safe spaces on campuses, as well as identity politics).”[4]
According to Saad, the real challenge to rationality is the emotional fragility of the modern individual and the emphasis placed on not causing hurt feelings. This emphasis on feelings and not creating offence overrides the pursuit of rational truth.[5] Coupled with this, the postmodern worldview that we are currently steeped in becomes the “ultimate epistemological liberator”.[6]
Human fragility along with postmodernism destroys the foundations of the Enlightenment. In Explaining Postmodernism Stephen Hicks also writes, “Postmodernism rejects the reason and the individualism that the entire Enlightenment world depends upon. And so it ends up attacking all of the consequences of the Enlightenment philosophy, from capitalism and liberal forms of government to science and technology.”[7]
My Convictions Challenged
I am challenged by Saad’s approach. In Chapter 8 he recruits the reader to join in the fight against these pathogens as he has done. He recommends such actions as engagement on social media. At the end of the chapter, he encourages the reader to activate their inner ferocious honey badger. He writes, “Let your animal spirit be that of the honey badger; be ferociously uncompromising in defending your integrity and in protecting truth.”[8]
I am not opposed to Saad engaging in such a ferocious way but that has not been my conviction. While I have no trouble debating ideas, and occasionally do so, I have chosen a different approach. I have chosen a relational approach and focused my “inner honey badger” on seeking inroads into the postmodern mindset with the gospel. While I do not embrace postmodernism, I do believe that we must think missionally about how to engage those who are steeped in this worldview. Arguing someone into the Kingdom rarely works.
After reading Saad, however, I do feel more challenged to step into challenging conversations. Even then, I will do so with more curiosity and a desire to help people encounter Christ. I am more committed to the challenge to speak with both grace and truth than becoming a honey badger to win a battle of ideas.
[1] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing, a division of Salem Media Group, 2020), XV.
[2] Saad, 15.
[3] “‘I Could Live 30 Years – but Want to Die’: Has Assisted Dying in Canada Gone Too Far?,” April 4, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wxq28znpqo.
[4] Saad, The Parasitic Mind, 20.
[5] Saad, 29.
[6] Saad, 69.
[7] Stephen Ronald Craig Hicks, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Michel Foucault, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, 1. ed, expanded ed (Roscoe, Ill.: Ockham’s Razor, 2011), 24.
[8] Saad, The Parasitic Mind, 186.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.15 responses to “Tempering The Inner Honey Badger”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you, Graham, for modeling relational curiosity in these situations. I also had this thought when reading the book: “Arguing someone into the Kingdom rarely works.” Have you ever met anyone in whom this tactic worked? The only cases I have seen are that after the arguments, the unbeliever met people who lived out Christ-like hospitality in a completely different way from the arguer.
Kari, it’s my conviction that Christianity is a relational faith. While people have become convicted of their sin and turned to God in repentance, I have really not seen someone become convinced through argument and then turn to God.
Hi Graham, Thank you for your clear and thoughtful post. Part of me wonders if I resonated with it because that would be my chosen way to interact with others as well. When someone is persistently argumentative when you are working from a more curious mindset, where are your limits and how do you transition away from the situation?
Thanks Diane, that’s an interesting question. I try to be respectful of people and their views, but if the other person is not genuinely curious, I choose not to have the conversation with them. I will rather talk about other things by redirecting the conversation.
I talked with someone the other day who clearly didn’t want to dialogue or even debate, even though I tried to make it an exchange, he just wanted to tell me what he thought. So, I listened, asked a few questions, and then redirected to something else. He eventually gave up.
Hi Graham, I really appreciated your reflections on stepping into challenging conversations with both curiosity and a balance of grace and truth. Your approach deeply resonates with me.
I’m curious—has this relational posture always come naturally to you, or has it developed over time? I ask because for years, I wrestled with feeling like a coward. I was raised in a denomination where street evangelists—often not the kindest ones—were upheld as the bold heroes of the faith. It took me a long time to stop comparing myself to an approach that felt completely opposite from how God wired me.
Elysse, I think it’s something I grew up with over time. My perspective is it takes more courage to be relational and curious. Telling someone something, essentially a one way monologue, is much easier than having to dialogue. I am much more comfortable preaching, for example, than in a dynamic dialogue with someone where I have to think on my feet, value what someone has said, and adapt my speech.
Last night, someone asked me a question about the difference between good and bad leadership. I could have said many things, but I chose to turn it around and asked him a question instead. It was a much richer and better conversation after that.
Honestly, I think it’s a discipline I’ve just had to develop over time.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your post and highlighting “the emotional fragility of the modern individual.” As we interact with others in a posture of curiosity how might we shore up the fragility of people? Systemically, where do you see signs of hope that people may be becoming increasingly resilient?
Hi Julie,
To question 1; I believe that we need to help people ground their identity in Christ. This could be the most important thing we do in leader development. In other relationships, people must feel safe enough with us for us to speak truth and that comes from building a trustfilled relationship. I think that’s why I am personally convinced of the need to develop relationships with people rather than leading with argument.
To question 2:
I see this in Christians who prioritize disciplines that help them develop a relationship with God. I see this in leaders who have chosen a non-anxious presence.
Graham, I REALLY appreciated your post. It clearly elucidated many things for me about the last few books. Thank you!
You mention a preference for a relational approach over a more confrontational one, as advocated by Gad Saad. Can you elaborate on specific strategies or techniques you use to foster constructive dialogue with individuals who hold postmodern views?
Hi Debbie,
Here is my strategy. This might take place over a longer period rather than one meeting. Developing a relationship for me means…
1. Seek to understand by asking lots of questions, rather than telling
2. Hear their personal story
3. Invite dialogue rather than debate, ” I’d love to hear more about your view on God. I also have a perspective. Would you be willing to dialogue with me on this?”
4. I have had the opportunity to pray with non-believers for Jesus to reveal himself to them experientially. It seems that when someone is open, Jesus shows up in their lives.
As an added comment… I think we need to create psychological safety for people in our world. They need a relationship that can handle their questions and doubts and pushback.
In The Culture Code, Daniel Coyle writes that we can create psychological safety with people by sending “belonging cues”. These belonging cues address fundamental questions of belonging that the human brain instinctively seeks to answer. Belonging cues possess three basic qualities: 1)Energy: They invest in the exchange that is occurring; 2) Individualization: They treat the person as unique and valued; 3) Future orientation: They signal the relationship will continue.
I think people need us to build this kind of relationship with them if they are going to earn the ability to dialogue on faith.
Graham, I REALLY appreciated your post. It clearly elucidated many things for me about our last few books.
You mention a preference for a relational approach over a more confrontational one, as advocated by Gad Saad. Can you elaborate on specific strategies or techniques you use to foster constructive dialogue with individuals who hold postmodern views?
Hey Graham I really appreciated how you looked at Saad’s proposition and posed your own method of approach, do you feel as though Saad’s message is compromised by the tonality of the messenger?
Daren, I am not opposed to Saad’s approach if that works for him. Given my personality and core values, one being a relational value, I think this works best for me.
I am challenged by Saad to be bolder in conversations but I won’t change my approach just yet.
Graham, your article raises such an important point about the posture we take in cultural engagement, and the analogy of a honey badger is spot on. You mentioned choosing a relational, missional approach over Saad’s combative stance. In light of your desire to engage postmodern individuals with the gospel, how do you discern when to challenge ideas more directly versus when to patiently build relational bridges? Are particular cues or contexts that help you navigate that tension between grace and truth?
Great question, Chad.
I’ll answer with an experience from the Camino that we had last summer. Before we walked 300 kms we prayed that we would join with what the Holy Spirit was doing in the lives of the people we met. As we got to know people, we would listen, hear their story, and then eventually share our story with them. If we sensed that they were open to dialogue we would continue to walk with them. If we sensed that they were simply entrenched in their view, and not ready to talk about Jesus, we would eventually walk on and look for other people. It was not that we didn’t value them, we just wanted to be part of the lives of people who were seeking.
With those who were seeking, we encouraged, challenged, shared Scripture and prayed with them. They were highly receptive to God even though they were not yet ready to receive Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life. It seemed that we could say almost anything, even if it was difficult for them to hear.
I heard an evangelist say, “we need to build relational bridges that are strong enough to bear the weight of truth.”