The Undeluded Truth? Is the Christian faith intellectual nonsense? Are Christians deluded?

“If God exists and takes an interest in the affairs of human beings, his will is not inscrutable,” writes Sam Harris about the 2004 tsunami in Letter to a Christian Nation . “The only thing inscrutable here is that so many otherwise rational men and women can deny the unmitigated horror of these events and think this is the height of moral wisdom.” [i] In his article “God’s Dupes,” Harris argues, “ Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.” [ii] Ironically, Harris’ first book is entitled The End of Faith, but it should really be called The End of Reason as it demonstrates again that the mind that is alienated from God in the name of reason can become totally irrational.
Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins suggests that the idea of God is a virus, and we need to find software to eradicate it. Somehow if we can expunge the virus that led us to think this way, we will be purified and rid of this bedeviling notion of God, good, and evil. [iii] Along with Christopher Hitchens and a few others, these atheists are calling for the banishment of all religious belief. “Away with this nonsense” is their battle cry! In return, they promise a world of new hope and unlimited horizons once we have shed this delusion of God.
I have news for them—news to the contrary. The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. Furthermore, one would like to ask Dawkins, Are we morally bound to remove that virus? Somehow he himself is, of course, free from the virus and can therefore input our moral data.
In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethics”. The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God.
Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet t he truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument.

Being Honest Ourselves

The prophet Jeremiah noted, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV). Similarly, the apostle James said, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:22-25).
The world does not understand what the absoluteness of the moral law is all about. Some get caught, some don’t get caught. Yet who of us would like our heart exposed on the front page of the newspaper today? Have there not been days and hours when like Paul, you’ve struggled within yourself, and said, “ I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do… . What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? ” (Romans 7:15, 24). Each of us knows this tension and conflict within if we are honest with ourselves.
Therefore, as Christians, we ought to take time to reflect seriously upon the question, “Has God truly wrought a miracle in my life? Is my own heart proof of the supernatural intervention of God?” In the West we go through these seasons of new-fangled theologies. The whole question of “lordship” plagued our debates for some time as we asked, is there such a thing as a minimalist view of conversion? “We said the prayer and that’s it.” Yet how can there be a minimalist view of conversion when conversion itself is a maximal work of God’s grace? “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV).
If you were proposing marriage to someone, what would the one receiving the proposal say if you said, “I want you to know this proposal changes nothing about my allegiances, my behavior, and my daily life; however, I do want you to know that should you accept my proposal, we shall theoretically be considered married. There will be no other changes in me on your behalf.” In a strange way we have minimized every sacred commitment and made it the lowest common denominator. What does my new birth mean to me? That is a question we seldom ask. Who was I before God’s work in me, and who am I now?
The first entailment of coming to know Jesus Christ is the new hungers and new pursuits that are planted within the human will. I well recall that dramatic change in my own way of thinking. There were new longings, new hopes, new dreams, new fulfillments, but most noticeably a new will to do what was God’s will. Thomas Chalmers characterized this change that Christ brings as “the expulsive power of a new affection.”
This new affection of heart—the love of God wrought in us through the Holy Spirit—expels all other old seductions and attractions. The one who knows Christ begins to see that his or her own misguided heart is impoverished and in need of constant submission to the will of the Lord—spiritual surrender. Yes, we are all gifted with different personalities, but humility of spirit and the hallmark of conversion is to see one’s own spiritual poverty. Arrogance and conceit ought to be inimical to the life of the believer. A deep awareness of one’s own new hungers and longings is a convincing witness to God’s grace within.

Ravi Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

[i] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), 48.

[ii] Sam Harris, “God’s Dupes,” The Los Angeles Times (March 15, 2007). Article available at http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/gods-dupes1/

[iii] Richard Dawkins, “Viruses of the Mind,” 1992 Voltaire Lecture (London: British Humanist Association, 1993), 9.

Christian worldview - an interview with Ravi Zacharias

Indian-born Ravi Zacharias, who grew up steeped in Hinduism, is one of the first Christian apologists to come out of the Third World. Headquartered in Atlanta, his expertise on comparative religions has earned him audiences from Capitol Hill to Harvard. The following are excerpts from an interview by Julia Duin with Mr. Zacharias, who was in town recently for a lecture at the C.S. Lewis Institute.

Q: How do you present the uniqueness of Christianity?
A: I am totally convinced the Christian faith is the most coherent worldview around. Everyone: pantheist, atheist, skeptic, polytheist has to answer these questions: Where did I come from? What is life's meaning? How do I define right from wrong and what happens to me when I die? Those are the fulcrum points of our existence. I deal with cultural issues whether they be in the Middle East, Far East, the Orient or the West. You broach questions in the context of their culture and then present Christian answers.

Q: Why do you call "Jesus Among Other Gods" your most significant book?
A: There was no life so impeccably lived as His. There are those who've claimed prophetic status who have led pretty heavily duplicitous lives. But in Christ, you never see that. You never find Him in any compromising situation that shows itself where He was driven by the sensuality of the moment. After 2000 years, no name has been scrutinized more, none abused or challenged more in the public media.
I find a lot of Western journalists intellectually cowardly here. They would never do with Mohammed what they do with Jesus. They don't have the courage to do that. If the major magazines — Time, Newsweek or U.S. News and World Report — did with Mohammed on one of their major festivals what they do to Jesus on Christmas or Easter, they probably wouldn't be in existence any more.

Q: Why are people so fascinated with Eastern religions?
A: Because they give you the privilege of morality without having God. Even aspects of the entire New Age movement are a moralizing philosophy without the positing of a central deity. Buddhism also gives you that. Bahaism gives you a pluralistic view, and a lot of aspects of Hinduism give you a moral framework with no accountability other than the karmic system. There's no linear movement or point of accountability toward God.
I was in a hearing with [former presidential speechwriter] Peggy Noonan years ago and she asked this question: Do terrorists fear anything? I said, 'I suspect they would fear a morally strong America.' They would know that a morally strong America would not be dislodged. You can always appeal to a point of vulnerability which would break a people up. [Terrorists] don't fear so much the weaponry as the moral courage, and I think a morally strong America would be intimidating to them.

Q: What has been your experience on American campuses?
A: If I speak on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or whatever, I am quite free to do it without any repercussions. But if you speak on the Christian faith, somebody is going to question why you are there. You talk to any Christian campus group on any major campus and they'll tell you about the intimidation there.
It's sad. I lived in India, then in Canada and then I've come here. America seems to take a hit for everything it does. But worse can be done in other parts of the world and it will be done with impunity. For instance, racism: I could take you to parts of the world today where racism is horrible, blatant. The same people who will tell you that, are the ones who will take us to task. I will tell you what is hidden under all of this. I believe because we live under the outworking of a Christian worldview, we are willing to face the self-criticism and scrutiny. Other worldviews are not willing to lend themselves to that.

Q: How much freedom do you have in Muslim countries?
A: [Muslims] will tell you there is no compulsion in religion. I was with the minister of religion of a major country that I will leave unnamed. He was a very courteous man and he was talking about the work they were doing. They had just met in Malaysia about improving the image of Islam.
I asked, 'Why do you feel it needs to be improved?' He said, 'Well, September 11. We are often represented as using compulsion in religion.' I said, 'I don't want to be discourteous, but if I were in your country and I were a Muslim, would I be free to disagree with it?' He said, 'Why would you want to do that?' I said, 'No, I am just asking theologically: Would I be free to disbelieve it?'
He said, 'Well, these things get more complicated when you deal with a country's laws and all.' I said, 'When you say there is no compulsion in religion, you are looking at one side of the coin, meaning you will never force someone to become what you are. But to have no compulsion means you should not compel somebody to believe something when they want to disbelieve it. That is a very critical test for compulsion.
There is no law in the land where I live, compelling me to [be a Christian]. But in your land, if I chose to disbelieve [Islam], I have to stand before a tribunal of justices and explain it. How can I withstand such intimidation and be honest and not pay for it at the same time?
Frankly, he wouldn't give me an answer. I think if Islam is going to rise to the level many moderates want to see it, they will have to take off the heavy foot of compulsion in their own lands. Then it can be a legitimate representation of how many believe.

Q: How can Christianity meet the needs of a place like India?
A: I was born and raised in Bombay and I go back there twice a year. India is agony writ large. The voices of the millions are not heard. Walk through the streets of Calcutta and it hits you. At the same time, it's the center of India's learning. Some of her greatest philosophers come from Calcutta. The first thing Christianity does is raise the level of every individual. There's an essential dignity. Every human being is of essential worth.
The second thing it does is give the impetus to love and reach out in a way that rescues the person, not just the function. Look at where the missionary organizations — the hospitals, orphanages and health care — came from. I spoke three weeks ago at Bahrain at the 100th anniversary of the American missionary hospital, which was founded in Saudi Arabia and now is in Bahrain. Many of the sheiks were born there and several were represented in the audience to which I spoke. From where came the impetus? It came from the love of Christ.

Q: What does American culture need rescuing from?
A: What America needs more than anything else right now is to know she cannot exist without the worldview that helped bring her into being. And that was the Judeo-Christian worldview. What America also needs is the willingness to allow the Christian faith freedom of access in the institutions that it allows every other faith to have.
Isn't it interesting that when these mainline divinity schools were conservative, room was given for the liberals. But they have become liberal and the conservatives are squeezed out, if not humiliated out, which is a fascinating reality.

Ravi Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. Reprinted with permission of The Washington Times. Visit our web site at http://www.washingtontimes.com

Correction: The hospital was founded in Bahrain (not Saudi Arabia as originally stated) and the missionaries traveled by road to Saudi Arabia to treat people and Royalty there.

Correction: Ravi Zacharias was born in Chennai (Madras) and raised in Delhi, not Bombay as this article states.

Ravi's Response to "Man Vs. God" Article in The Wall Street Journal

In response to the essays presented by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong in "Man Vs. God" (Saturday, September 12), I would add that the combination of Dawkins and Armstrong as presenting two contrary views on the existence of God is in itself a "creative act." For one, God is a fairy tale and for the other "at least it's a nice fairy tale." One may as well have asked Bin Laden to write his thoughts on America and then ask Chavez for a counter perspective. Amazing. Even by today's media manipulations, that raises the benchmark.

Let me just respond with two thoughts. Dawkins says: "What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics." Let's grant him that for the moment. But the fact of physics is that however you section physical concrete reality, you end up with a state that does not explain its own existence. Moreover, since the universe does have a beginning and nothing physical can explain its own existence, is it that irrational a position to think that the first cause would have to be something non-physical?

More can be said, but for the sake of brevity may I ask one more question?

The position that both Armstrong and Dawkins would be compelled to concede is that moral categories do exist for us as persons. It is implicit in their writings. So I ask, if personhood is of value and if our personal questions on moral values are of value, then must we not also concede that the value-laden question about intrinsic value for humanity can only be meaningful if humanity is the creation of a person who is of infinite worth to bequeath that value to us as persons?

In other words, our assumptions about our worth and the worthiness of our questions of good and evil cannot be the offspring of Naturalism.

But these are the gaps atheists conveniently ignore. They value their Physics but devalue their Physicist. They are quick to blame a person for evil but are loathe to attribute goodness to the ultimate person.
That is, either our questions are rooted in personal worth or not. If they are, then God must exist. If they are not, then our questions are self-defeating.

That is why G.K. Chesterton said: When belief in God becomes difficult, the tendency is to turn away from him.

But in heaven's name to what? Dawkins and Armstrong are brilliant examples of making something out of nothing but it shows they are borrowing from something that they deny exists.

A spiritual, moral first cause is a reasonable position much more than the questions that smuggle in such realities without admitting it.

Maybe that's why two brilliant minds, Anthony Flew and more recently A.N. Wilson, left the atheistic fold. They saw the hollow word-games that flew in the face of reality as we also intuitively know it.

Ravi Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.