Hi Randy,
I know that neither of us are
presuppositionalists but I was hoping you wouldn't mind answering a question
for me. I've heard presuppositional apologists tell atheists they are
importing the Christian worldview to get their moral values and duties.
Would there be any reason that a Muslim could not say the same thing?
Why would it have to be a Christian worldview the atheist is helping
himself to and not an Islamic one?
Thanks Randy!
Larry
Hi
Larry, thanks for the question! You’re right that I’m no presuppositionalist,
but I am sympathetic to some of the basic reasoning. So it might surprise some
people who know me to hear that I do think God is a necessary precondition for
knowledge, since I think God is a necessary precondition for all else that
exists! Specifically, for objective moral values and duties, William Lane Craig
essentially uses this same reasoning in his moral argument. He first argues
that God grounds objective moral values (without God, they would not be
around), and objective moral values do exist, therefore, God exists.
Now
we ask if Muslims could do precisely the same thing? If the presuppositionalist
is right, then no. We could not grant the presuppositionalist his claim that
Christianity is needed to make sense of the world and still grant the Muslim his
claim. The presuppositional argument precludes Islam being true. However, this
is most likely not what you mean, since your last sentence of the question
indicates you’d want some reason that we should prefer Christianity over Islam.
And
this is why many, perhaps the vast majority of, popular level presentations of
presuppositional apologetics don’t go anywhere. More than once, I’ve read a
“refutation” of a world religion that basically read something like:
Christianity is true; X world religion is incompatible with Christianity;
therefore, X world religion has been refuted, and the article’s author
metaphorically walked off triumphantly, like some major intellectual exercise
had just taken place.
Now,
to be fair, some presuppositionalists will in fact try to offer reasons to
think the competing worldview is wrong (say, by pointing out an internal
incoherence). But they will rarely, if ever, engage in any reasons why
Christianity is preferred. I once watched an entire DVD set on apologetics
where it was just assertion after assertion. While I fundamentally agreed with
most of the assertions, they just didn’t give anyone any reason to believe it.
I could go on and on with criticisms, but I don’t like the so-called “method
wars,” so I’ll just sum up my answer: the Muslim would be able to make the same
claim unless or until one or both of the following occurred: there were reasons
given to support Christianity over Islam; Islam was shown to be false (by
internal incoherence or something). But notice even the latter move doesn’t
necessitate Christianity’s truth. I hope that at least helps!