[Craig] Now that's an interesting value judgment that you're making, and I'd like to know on an
atheistic naturalistic worldview, on what basis can you make that value judgment between these
two separate societies and cultures? [Leikind] Why do I think the society is better that doesn't
have slaves? [Craig] Yes, why is our set of values, which abhors slavery, superior to
any other cultures which adheres to slavery? Why characterize this as a moral improvement
rather than just a difference? [Leikind] Well it certainly is a difference, and the reason I think
it's a moral improvement is that all of us have things to offer, and slavery denies large people,
large numbers of people, the chance to achieve everything that they have to offer to us. And I
happen to think we live in a pluralistic society, and the essence of our society is that everyone
gets a chance to contribute; everyone gets the chance to throw out their ideas. [Craig] But that
wasn't the essence of ancient Hebrew society, right? [Leikind] Oh, no. [Craig] So why are
you imposing our values on them? [Leikind] Oh I'm not criticizing them for having slaves.
That's their society, and that was where, you know... but the the point I'm making is
that there's no place where it's written in stone here are the moral values by which we
should all live for all time. [Craig] So you can't really condemn slavery on an atheistic,
naturalistic worldview, can you? [Leikind] No I do, I think slavery is wrong, I think it's a bad
thing. [Craig] But isn't that just an expression of your own socio-cultural situation that you were
born in this... [Leikind] That's right. [Craig] So it doesn't have any objective sort of validity?
[Leikind] No, it comes from our society. That's why I said that for all of us... I'll give you
an example, today, right today, we are arguing about whether or not it is moral for the President
to have lied about his sexual relationship. We're arguing about that. Is that a moral thing or not?
We ourselves, all of us today, the Senators, all of us who are voters, we are deciding whether what
he did was a moral thing or not, and that's the way morals are created. In fact I would say if you
believe that you have some set of objective moral values I would say well, why should I
believe that you have them? I mean how are you going to know? Well you're going to have to do
the same thing as anybody else who has relative moral values to try to show why your values are
better and right and they work correctly and they have this... all of those things. You can't tell
the difference between absolute objective values and relative ones, it's just a fact.
[Craig] You don't think that you can tell that we ought to love a child rather than torture and
sexually abuse a child? [Leikind] I think that's a good idea to love a child, I think it's a good
idea. It rises from our biological heritage; it's natural and normal for us. [Craig] But one isn't
morally different from the other? [Leikind] No I think that they're morally different; it's bad
to inflict harm. That's why I criticize God in the book of Job, cause he's inflicted unmerited,
undeserved suffering on totally innocent people, and I think that's wrong of God. [Craig] On what
basis do you make that value judgment? I think it's bad to inflict suffering and harm on other
people. [Craig] Why? [Leikind] What do you mean why? [Craig] Why is that wrong on a naturalistic
worldview? The Nazis thought it was alright to do that to Jews. They did, and that's because morals
are created by societies, and that society created a system that made those people see with such
hatred, and we have many differences in moral opinions. In some Asian societies such as in China
and Japan they're much more communitarian oriented than we are, and we're very individualistically
oriented. Well I mean do I think that there's some place where it's written here it is,
you're supposed to be individualistic? I don't think so; let's take a specific example to
discuss it. Is divorce moral? Let's ask that. Is divorced moral, in your absolute moral code,
is divorce moral? [Zacharias] I think the issue here is anything, not just divorce, is anything
right or wrong, and by your own philosophy nothing is! [Leikind] Now you haven't answered my question.
This is a pretty well-known debating tactic here, and I want to know, I want to know, is divorce
moral? That's the question. Well answer that one, that's a yes-or-no question. [Craig] Very briefly,
the Bible does lay down certain conditions prohibiting divorce and allowing divorce
under other conditions. So I mean that's just a matter of you can look in the Gospels and see what
Jesus said. But honestly Dr. Leikind, this isn't a debating tactic or trick. This is a fundamental
philosophical question. On the one hand you want to make value judgments, like God was wrong to
do this Job, slavery was abhorrent, we have improved morally over this other culture, the
Nazis were wrong, and yet on the other hand, out of the other side of your mouth, you're affirming
moral relativism you have no transcendent anchor for these values and hence you're lost in a sea
of social cultural relativism. [Leikind] You were correct in everything you said till you
said I was lost. [Craig] Alright. [Zacharias] That's why we invited you here!