menu

about

Reasons for apostasy. Aids for empathy. A study in questioning from the atheist daughter of a Baptist preacher.



Designed by Ryan Jay
Powered by Tumblr
Theme "Ride your bike"

Ravi and the Moral Lawgiver[s]

Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God.
“There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!”
I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”
“Of course,” he retorted.
“But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?”
“I suppose so,” came the hesitant and much softer reply.
“If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”
                            Ravi Zacharias

My father has always considered Ravi Zacharias to be one of the pre-eminent Biblical apologists. We used to listen to his sermons in the kitchen on the radio on Sunday mornings before church. When I was a child, this tale (which Ravi has been telling for at least 8 years) proved for me that there was a God.
When I stopped believing, my dad used this “proof” to question my unbelief. At the time, I did not have an answer. Now, I would re-tell the story:

Some time ago, I was speaking at a university in England, when a person in the audience made an attack upon God.
"There cannot possibly be an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God," she said, "with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world."
I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”
"Of course," she replied.
"But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?"
"If you would like to call it that," she replied, patiently.
"If, then, there is a moral law," I said, "you must also posit a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver - "
"Wait," she interrupted. "I posit moral lawgivers. You yourself speak of ‘the morals of the culture/of the time’ when defending actions of the Old Testament. Would you say that God has changed moral laws with the time? Does God change his mind? The fact is that what we consider moral today is vastly different from what was considered moral 100, 1000, 10000 years ago. The reason our morals have changed is because human beings are slowly figuring out what works and what does not work in forming functional, lasting relationships and communities. So yes, I suggest that there are some universal morals, but no, I do not posit a moral lawgiver. We are all moral lawgivers, and always have been, and will continue to be.

65 notes | Permalink

  1. survivablyso reblogged this from iwasachristian
  2. dragonflycockslap reblogged this from iwasachristian
  3. rasa2013 reblogged this from iwasachristian
  4. iwasachristian posted this