Looks like Ravi Zacharias might be in trouble.

[the_ignored]

Details here. This is the same guy who, well, along with the rest of the evangelical crowd, loves to take shots at the morality of atheists.

Summary of Concerns

The Cambridge Claim

Ravi Zacharias has claimed for many years that he was a “visiting scholar at Cambridge University.” He presents this claim prominently in his press bios and in his memoirs. He makes frequent mention of it in his public appearances. It is by far the most impressive item in his academic portfolio.

The claim is false. The University of Cambridge press office has confirmed the same to us.

We recently contacted Mr. Zacharias and informed him of our belief that he has misrepresented having been a “visiting scholar at Cambridge University.” We informed him of our intent to go public with this information and we asked him for a response. None came.

Shortly thereafter Mr. Zacharias deleted the claim from his official website bio.

There's more.

[Anaxagoras]

Never heard of him. Sounds like another shyster.

[the_ignored]

Yep:

Failure to follow basic standards of honesty in public speaking

In Ethics in Public Speaking, James Kudooski states the obvious: “Ethics in public speaking demand that you are honest and accurate in the information you are presenting to your audience. Do not mislead your audience intentionally. Do not distort the facts to suit your aim. If you are not sure about a piece of information or fact or statistics, don’t use it!”

In one of the first Ravi Zacharias lectures that we viewed, he attempts to prove the inspiration of the Book of Daniel by showing that although it was written in the 6th century B.C.E. it predicted accurately the rise and fall of Alexander the Great two centuries later. In making the argument Mr. Zacharias twice emphasized the 6th century dating of Daniel.

Upon investigating Mr. Zacharias’ claim we learned that contemporary Old Testament scholarship widely agrees that Daniel was written two centuries after Alexander the Great.

The question is not about the dating of Daniel. One need not be an expert in the dating of ancient document to see deception by Mr. Zacharias here. He undoubtedly understands that the 6th century date is (at best) hotly contested, yet he gave no indication of that to his unsuspecting audience of college students.

[Doctor X]

Yep:

In one of the first Ravi Zacharias lectures that we viewed, he attempts to prove the inspiration of the Book of Daniel by showing that although it was written in the 6th century B.C.E. it predicted accurately the rise and fall of Alexander the Great two centuries later. In making the argument Mr. Zacharias twice emphasized the 6th century dating of Daniel.

Upon investigating Mr. Zacharias’ claim we learned that contemporary Old Testament scholarship widely agrees that Daniel was written two centuries after Alexander the Great.

Yup.

Let me guess: he also claims Moshe wrote the Pentateuch . . . with Deuteronomy dictated in the Castle AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. . . .


--J.D.

[sparks]

He is the Paraclete Of Keborka!!

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[sparks]

Yea!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

[Doctor X]

A highly underrated film.

I can remember Me Dad mentioning I had to see it as a Wee Spud because of "The Paraclete of Kaborka!"

"The what?"

One of the first really good satires I had seen. One that critically examined something.

--J.D.

[izittrue]

A satire I don't know about? Hmm. The Paraclete of Kaborka, that's the title?

[Abdul Alhazred]

OK, so I look him up in Wikipedia (what with never having heard of him).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

... Zacharias states that a coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny. He says that while every major religion makes exclusive claims about truth, the Christian faith is unique in its ability to answer all four of these questions. ...

More of that "pre-sup" shit then?

[Doctor X]

A satire I don't know about? Hmm. The Paraclete of Kaborka, that's the title?

The Hospital.

--J.D.

[Anaxagoras]

OK, so I look him up in Wikipedia (what with never having heard of him).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

... Zacharias states that a coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny. He says that while every major religion makes exclusive claims about truth, the Christian faith is unique in its ability to answer all four of these questions. ...

More of that "pre-sup" shit then?

"the Christian faith is unique in its ability to answer all four of these questions"

But are the answers correct? Can Christians even agree among themselves what the correct answers are?




In Math class you have to "show your work" to get credit for solving a problem. An unverifiable (unfalsifiable) answer is really no answer at all. It's what they call "not even wrong".


Science does give a pretty good answer for question of origin, although I confess that even though I've read books about the Big Bang, I don't fully understand it. I'm pretty sure that even scientists still have remaining questions about the Big Bang and it's not totally 100% nailed down yet. And questions like "what was there before the Big Bang" may simply be unknowable. Likewise, with Evolution, it provides a great, testable answer about the origin of species, and where we humans came from, but it doesn't quite go back to the very beginning: what was the very first life-form, from which everything from people to algae to fungi to viruses is descended? That one is probably more knowable than the Big Bang, but we haven't quite got there yet.

Science also has a good answer for "destiny" but for the universe, not for the "destiny" of humankind. Eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen for fusion and will become a red giant, which will consume the Earth. Eventually all stars will run out and there will be no more fuel to light up the universe. It will be maximum entropy and heat death.

For the other two questions, you need something other than science: philosophy. But there's no reason that a "worldview" can't incorporate both science and philosophy. So there is in fact a rational "worldview" that gives better answers to all of those questions than Christianity can. Christianity demands you simply accept its answers "on faith". Faith itself (belief without evidence) is seen as a virtue for Christians. Why?