I brought my colleague to listen to Ravi and Sam Allberry last week in Hamilton Ontario Canada. He is an atheist and at first tried to attack Ravi based on what he thought of his character and motivations for “spreading “ the gospel. I was able to move him past that (!!) and get him to focus on the the logic behind Ravi’s apoplectic. This is his first step at poking holes at the Christian apologetic of morality and the belief in God. He is asking me (below) if I agree with his understanding of our definition of morality I assume BEFORE he goes on his attack. What do you you all think of his summary of morality?? Do I say I agree?
“Let’s poke around at one of Ravi’s arguments: there can be no moral truth without a belief in god. Before getting into it though I want to be clear about what he is saying. Morality, or the principles by which people ought to act, cannot be relevant unless it is grounded in the belief of some supernatural deity. For our case and purpose let that be the Judo-Christian God. The believer will always have a reference frame from which she can decide if an action is right or wrong. And because God’s laws are eternal, these principles must be equally valid now as they will be 100, 1000, n number of years from now, otherwise why would God make them? The, non-believer, on the other hand, does not believe there are any universal truths, and therefore cannot appeal to any objective set of moral principles. As a result, your moral truth is just as valid as someone else’s. Is my understanding correct?”