We have no more the moral reasoning to arrive at all of this. So I think the last bastion of this that is left as far as I’m concerned, you can go to scientific proofs, you can go to design proofs, you can go to so many other things. But the average person who really opens up their eyes and is listening to you recognizes there has to be a moral framework with which I do my thinking. What is it that makes me a person or a creature of value? So in that essential nature is the image of God. The image of God gives to me moral reasoning. We cannot communicate truth while compromising the implications of truth.
So I would say how you communicate in this society is conviction with compassion. Convictions are very different to opinions. Opinions are something that you hold to. Convictions are those which hold you. You can change an opinion – one time you might like blue and next year you might like green – it’s okay. But you cannot change your convictions about the sacredness of life or the sacredness of sexuality or love and those that you put into this category. The challenge to the Christian is how to communicate conviction with compassion.
starting at 35:19 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtOhPCp1XXo
The issue, then, is not whether the belief system you espouse – monotheistic, atheistic, pantheistic, or otherwise – is exclusive. The issue is whether the answers to the four basic questions of life pertaining to origin, meaning, morality, and destiny within the context of each of these world-views meet the tests of truth. Are they logically consistent, are they empirically adequate, and are they experientially relevant? The answers to life’s four questions must in each instance correspond to reality, and the sum of the answers must cohere as a system.
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God,p. 126
I suggest that there are three tests to which any system or statement that makes a claim to truth must be subjected as a preliminary requirement if that statement is to be considered meaningful for debate. Those tests are (1) logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, and (3) experiential relevance.
These three tests provide a high degree of confidence that as they are applied to a system of belief, truth or falsehood can be established. The truth claims of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or atheism must all meet these tests. Is there a logical consistency in what is stated? Is there empirical adequacy where its truth claims can be tested? Is there experiential relevance – does it apply meaningfully to my life?
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, p 123-124
The search for truth is nevertheless hauntingly present, propelled by the need for incontrovertible answers to four inescapable questions, those dealing with origin, meaning, morality and destiny. No thinking person can avoid this search, and it can only end when one is convinced that the answers espoused are true.
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, p 93
I say to you with emphasis that the older you get, the more it takes to fill your heart with wonder, and only God is big enough to do that.
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God?, p 89
Worship must not only be deliberate; it must also be defined. Worship has been defined by God as something that must be directed to Him alone; it is not to be reduced to mere ceremony. In creating us, God created us to worship, and no degree of academic progress will ever replace that need.
I believe worship is important because it brings each life into cohesiveness within itself and into harmony with others in community. The famed Archbishop William Temple define worship in these terms:
Worship is the submission of all of our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness, nourishment of mind by His truth, purifying of imagination by His beauty, opening of the heart to His love, and submission of will to His purpose. All this gathered up in adoration is the greatest of all expressions of which we are capable.
Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, p. 151