This was posted on my page from a girl I went to high school with....She said. "I have struggled to understand this for a long time...A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God......Well said Ravi Zacharias..." How would YOU respond to this? Would you respond to this?
I don't think I would respond because I don't want to get into it on Facebook any more. If the situation were different I might say something like, "Which man? Ravi Zacharias is making a statement about all atheists in this quote. Some do indeed reject God because of the lack of evidence. I am not sure exactly what he means by 'intellectual demands' but I can assure you that my intellect demands I not believe in something for which I have been given no evidence of existence. I am fairly certain that the ability to admit a need for God is a completely separate issue. Whether or not people feel or realize they need a God, there is still no evidence for one. This is a truly presumptuous statement. You can think that Mr. Zacharias said it well, but that certainly does not make it true for all non-believers. It is not true for this one."
And then I'd let the chips fall where they may.
A man who has a need for a God will find it very hard to understand how it can be that another man can have no need for a God. Instead, he will invent a 'moral resistance' argument for that other man, in order to justify the existence of his own need.
I would say one of the main reasons I don’t believe in the existence of his God is the complete lack of evidence for it. There is none whatsoever. Therefore my lack of belief is based on intellectual grounds while his is based on an emotional need to believe as he cannot envisage living (or more likely dying) without faith in his God. Then I would ask for a definition of the term “moral resistance”. It is one of those terms apologetics like. It sounds good but it is vague and meaningless. It’s what Dan Dennett would call a “Deepity”.
I would respond by asking for an explanation of what your school friend thinks Ravi Z. means and then pick that apart. Post it here if you like.
It's just a broken argument. You don't reject things that people can't prove are true; you simply don't accept that they are true and ask for proof (at which point, you can decide to accept or reject it; but since theists have never presented anything to reject [other than a claim], and their subsequent inability to move on to other things, we're at an impasse).
I'd respond to it...but only in the manner I've just explained. The best thing to do is point out they have not proven their claim, therefore there's no need to make additional excuses for why we won't accept A.) the claim and B.) the non-evidence --- or argumentative "evidence"--- for said claim. If they presented actual evidence, then perhaps they could prove there is in fact a "resistance." However, the real resistance is the banging of the the theistic head into this immovable wall called logic, reason, and evidentialism.
(don't say the last part to them).
yes indeed sir. yes indeed.
Okay, well, you can point out that that quote expresses an attitude. It's not a fact.
That's a very good point, Unseen. She needs to justify her opinion.
There is a grain of sense or truth in there. However, Ravi Zacharias is confusing the Creator God and God's love.
By all means, we mustn't confuse a creator Non-Existent Entity with the love of a Non-Existent Entity, how gauche!
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
-- Delos B. McKowan --
Ask her if she has any original opinions and thoughts about the matter...or does she let men of religion fill her that region of her brain which inquires and rationalizes with pretty quotes and verse?
Then prepare for a fb wall war. If she responds with scripture, just copy and paste the original question until she comes up with an independent thought.
Wow. That's actually a really good answer.