Dr. Craig Responds to Dr. Leikind's Moral Positions

(FYI, I think this is being removed because of Ravi's now proven discretions. Which is a huge blow to fans of his, like myself)Show more

A panel discussion and debate on the meaning of evil and suffering from theists Dr. William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, atheist Dr. Bernard Leikind (a plasma physicist and senior editor of Skeptic magazine), and Hindu Dr. Jitendra Mohanty (one of India's most distinguished Hindu philosophers and professor at Emory University).
__________________________
▼ The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p 25

[....]

▼ If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e. of Materialism and — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 52-53.

(Read more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes-i/quotes-ii/)
-------------------------------------------
See more here:
✿ Four Problems with Naturalistic Evolutionary Ethics ~ http://moralapologetics.com/four-problems-with-naturalistic-evolutionary-ethics/
✿ Moral Relativism, a Problematic ~ http://ubcgcu.org/2013/11/25/problem-of-moral-relativism/
✿ Alternatives to Moral Relativism ~ https://en.outreach.ca/Serving/Churches/tabid/5242/ArticleId/7330/Alternatives-to-Moral-Relativism.aspx
-------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins says that rape being morally wrong is just as consequential as us evolving 5 fingers instead of four. Or his stating that to say Hitler is "evil" is truly a tough question/response ("What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question” ~ Dawkins). Further, Dawkins states:

▼ "So long as DNA is passed on, it does not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. Genes don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care about anything…. DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music…. This universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

You probably then believe with Dr. Provine when he said:

▼ "No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche. Humans and other animals make choices frequently, but these are determined by the interaction of heredity and environment and are not the result of free will. No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life."