Can There Truly Be An "Internal Critique" Based Upon the Presuppositional Approach to Apologetics?

Paul Manta replied, in part, to my previous post (below) by saying, “A Muslim could try to make the [same presuppositional] argument, and I would hope that he would. But making the argument doesn't mean that it'll fly. So, we must subject each worldview to an internal critique, like I did….”

An “internal critique” is what is asked for, eh? And Paul did this internal critique of Islam in the link he provided eh,? So why don’t Muslims just abandon their faith after reading what Paul wrote? Why? Why don’t they accept his “internal critique” and deny their faith? Isn’t it because every world-view has Kuhnsian anomalies to it that the believer accepts despite the difficulties? And with that being acknowledged from his presuppositional approach, then there can be no real internal critique to someone else’s faith.


I believe I am critiquing Christianity internally here, here, here,here, here, here, and here, to list a few of my previous posts. There will be more to come. But I can see Paul is no more impressed with my “internal critique” of his faith than Muslims are with his “internal critique” of their faith.

Just to say that an internal critique of the Muslim faith is what a presupposionalist does (i.e., negative cultic apologetics), doesn’t solve much of anything. Why? Because Paul is still doing his critique from a different presupposed perspective other than the one he’s critiquing internally. Paul’s whole apologetical appraoch presupposes there is no common ground between the faiths he rejects, and hence, differing world-views and religions are incommensurable.

Therefore, Paul isn’t truly accepting, for the sake of his critique, the whole world-view which he wants to internally critique. If he did, then according to the same presuppositional apologetical approach that he advocates, he would be a Muslim. Why? Because every faith has internally inconsistent anomalies to it that poses problems to the adherent’s faith, but that faith is presupposed and believed despite the anomalies.

7 comments:

Zachary Moore said...

I really fail to see how an internal critique is sufficient to condemn any particular worldview according to presuppositional methodology. One could constuct a worldview based on the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien and have it be internally consistent. Additionally, there could be a yet-uncharacterized worldview based on a yet-undiscovered deity that is internally consistent. Christianity (assuming that it is likewise internally consistent) is not unique in this respect, and therefore can't claim presuppositional precedence.

What I think is more damning to a worldview is its correspondence to reality, rather than internal consistency.

Paul Manata said...

Well, many reasons could be given, besides your Kuhnian reason, for whay people hold beliefs tenaciously.

But, that's not the point. The only proper answer to your ignorant post is: proof is not persuasion.

Paul Manata said...

"Paul’s whole apologetical appraoch presupposes there is no common ground between the faiths he rejects, and hence, differing world-views and religions are incommensurable"

This isn't my view. John, do you think you can show where I say this? Can you quote presuppositionalists on "common ground?" What do we say about it?

Is it a habit of yours to pop off before you've studied your opponent? Looks ridiculous if you ask me, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

VanTilsGhost said...

Paul, you've stated before on www.unchainedradio.com that there are only 2 World Views....the Christian one, and all others. You've stated that nobody is neutral, and that if people aren't 'for' God, they are against him.

Does that cover it?

Paul Manata said...

VTG,

Wow! Is this the *first* time I've seen you try to engage anyone above the level of name calling?

Anyway, does what cover what?

Were you responding to something I said?

I don't know the context of your statement.

Do try and be a bit more precise, mmkay?

VanTilsGhost said...

1:

"Paul’s whole apologetical appraoch presupposes there is no common ground between the faiths he rejects,"

2:

"This isn't my view. John, do you think you can show where I say this?"

3:

"Paul, you've stated before on www.unchainedradio.com that there are only 2 World Views....the Christian one, and all others. You've stated that nobody is neutral, and that if people aren't 'for' God, they are against him."

It seemed to me that point #1 does indeed match with point #3, because you presuppose your worldview/faith is true, and all others (worldviews/faiths) are false by default....which invalidates point #2.

Or Paul, do you disagree? I think this is correct 'in spirit,' although you may like to quibble over a word here or there...a common tactic on your part.

Paul Manata said...

There is no neutrality but there is common groud. Your error is i assuming that common ground must be neutral ground. I deny this.

Anyway, this has been discussed in much of our literature. Are you admitting you're poping off before you've studied an issue?

So, what is our answer to your query? We've answered it back in the 40s.