Can Man Live Without God?

"Can man live without God?" That's a question asked by Ravi Zacharias in his book by the same name. Unfortunately, Zacharias' book doesn't offer any substantive response beyond tortured logic that sounds more like a diatribe from Laura Ingraham than an intellectual response to atheism.

I seriously tried to read this book. However, it is intellectually impenetrable. It is not impenetrable because of the deep analysis of philosophical abstracts or scholarly reasoning—those facets are utterly lacking and were clearly evident before I even finished the introduction. The book is impenetrable because at nearly every turn where Zacharias has an opportunity to serve up scholarship, we get rank juvenalia instead.

For example, Zacharias provides repeated pleas to elevate the discussion beyond "frothy God-talk" and "religious verbiage, seeped in emotional drivel and bereft of reason." Recognizing that the current generation "longs to think again," Zacharias argues that we have an obligation to provide that opportunity lest we waste our intellect. In pursuit of this, he states that we must find "common ground" and whatever conclusions we make, those conclusions must meet "not only the intimations of the heart but the demands of the mind" and that our approach must include "arguments and attitudes that demonstrate not only intellect and candor but also tenacious honesty." Zacharias concludes, "[the] introduction of a knee-jerk emotional response, however passionately felt, must be set aside, for it has no validity in defending the truthfulness of propositions or systems."

This would be an admirable approach—if he had actually utilized it. Instead of answers that meet the demands of the mind and "intellectual and existential rigor," we are treated to so much ham-handed pseudo-intellectualism that by page 21, there isn't much need to read further.

P. xvi: I hope I have shown the many logical and social breaking points of antitheistic thinking, which is just too incoherent to be true . . . .

P. 10: The debate [on the existence of God] once again proved beyond any doubt that only ignorance or prejudice calls the theistic position uninformed or intellectually wanting. (emphasis added)

P. 17: I am thoroughly convinced that when the last chapter of humanity is written we will find that the implications of atheism, i.e., living without God, if consistently carried through, will have made life plainly unlivable within the limits of reason or even of common sense.

P. 20: The reality is, under close examination, that [atheism] is philosophically incoherent, morally bankrupt, and unable to logically or existentially support civilization.

Way to elevate the conversation, there, Mr. Zacharias. You spent your argument by page 20 and concluded that atheism is "morally bankrupt"—and all without presenting a single iota of argumentation beyond a bare claim.

P. xvii: The end of the first section leads to the logical conclusion that a philosophy of meaninglessness is an unavoidable consequence of the antitheistic starting point. This is readily admitted by antitheists, but it is cavalierly espoused by them as liberating. Can this really be so?

Actually, no. I know of no atheistic thinker who would agree that a "philosophy of meaninglessness" is the "unavoidable consequence" for a lack of belief in God. But it seems necessary to dishonestly put words into the mouths of others to simplify an argument into a straw man.

Additionally, Zacharias' attempt at a scholarly treatment of Nietzsche is not just still-born, but an abortion. He butchers history to link Nietzsche to the Nazis (a long-discredited and well documented falsehood), and then butchers Nietzsche's philosophy to present it in a completely unrecognizable form.

In the end, Zacharias identifies and relies upon the usual religious bogeymen (lawyers (p. xiii), universities/higher education (introduction), popular music (p. 3), Hollywood (p. 4), special-interest groups (p. 11), technology and the arts (p. 12)) to prop up his diatribes and offers little in the way actual debate or compelling argument. He uses inflammatory and polarizing language while at the same time calling for moderation in the debate. And most hypocritical of all, after castigating those who have had the discipline to understand and adhere to their intellect, logic, and critical thinking skills--to characterize them as "elites" or "experts" while brandishing the terms as insults--we find in the biographic blurb at the end that Zacharias' ancestors "came from the highest caste of the Hindu priesthood."