What Ought To Be
I was listening to a Ravi Zacharias debate yesterday on a CD. The debate was held prior to 9/11. In that debate, a professor, calling himself a religious atheist (whatever that means!) and a naturalist (who denies the existence of a moral lawgiver) got into some kind of trouble.
A comment from the floor went something like this: 'If this world is what it ought NOT to be, then there must be something what OUGHT to be. If there is something that ought to be, then there must be an intelligent designer who created what ought to be.' Is this true?
Though it may sound a little confusing, but certainly this world is NOT what it OUGHT to be. Because of the fallen nature of man, this world has transformed to be what it ought NOT to be. The naturalist takes issue with this and says that he does not believe in the fallen nature of man. His rationale: It is unfair to punish the whole of mankind for the sins of the first couple.
Funny. He disagrees with the objective nature of moral law, yet he pases moral jugments on what is right and wrong. He also says that life has little meaning. If that is the case, how can we attribute meaning to his words?
Oh, the depths to which atheists, naturalists and sceptics have to go to explain God away.....what a joke this is!

