I've just watched a lecture on why atheism doesn't work by Ravi Zacharias. I think there must be some kind of disconnect between our thinking: [Spirituality & Religion]

The take away was three main points but i don't really get why they should move me or anyone else:

1) " There is no point of reference for morality".

Well i disagree. As Sam Harris argues so well, human well being is an excellent metric for morality.

2) "There is no ultimate point to life except what you give to yourself."

Well so? Why is that a bad thing? What's wrong or less worthy about finding meaning in my happiness and the happiness of my loved ones?

3) "There is no hope beyond the grave".

Well just because one doesn't believe in god doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in life beyond the grave, so that's an inaccurate characterization of atheism.
But even if there is no hope for life after death...so what? Do we choose what to believe based on what is comforting or based on what appears to be true to us? Why does this make atheism an untenable position?

Here's the lecture for anyone who is interested. Many people seem to find it inspiring.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6aDoOzYN-U]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

Thank you for sharing. I have seen other videos by Ravi Zacharias, and have read some of his articles and books. He's is an excellent Christian apologist, and is always respectful, even to those who do not hold his position.

Dennis Prager also speaks to the idea of morality finding its reference in God. He is a conservative Jew, not a Christian.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrcQ_PTkVD4]

Pikachu

@SW-User

But the easy answer to all of these is well being.
Murder, rape and theft are all contrary to a person's well being and that's why they may be considered morally wrong without reference to a deity.

SW-User

Perhaps is better for one's well being, because laws are there to prevent people from acting out on them. Left to one's own devices there is no reason for them to ascribe to anybody's moral code but their own. Calvin and Hobbes sum it up rather well:

Pikachu

@SW-User

lol yes, Calvin demonstrates why narcissism is not viable in a community.
But i'm not sure what point you're making.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Pikachu it would appear that you have no idea what narcissism is. lol

SW-User

@Pikachu Sorry you don't understand the point. If there is no God and no absolute truth, then anybody's moral code is acceptable in their own eyes.

Pikachu

@SW-User

then anybody's moral code is acceptable in their own eyes.

Could be. But individuals don't live in a vacuum. We live in social groups.
While an individual's moral code may be acceptable in their own eyes it will still be rejected by the society on the general basis of human well being.
So there is no omnipotent arbiter of morality.
So what?

SW-User

@SW-User “Anybody’s moral code is acceptable” - not true. There may not be any “absolutes”, but that doesn’t mean all answers to moral questions are equal.

So long as we can both agree that when we’re discussing morality, we’re talking about maximising wellbeing and minimising suffering, then we can make objective statements on morality.