Islam and Christian Worldviews: Conclusion

Filed under: Apologetics — Barry Carey at 10:29 am on Tuesday, November 21, 2006

This is the eighth and final post in a series on a comparison of Christian and Islamic Worldviews.

The Islamic view of salvation is radically opposed to the Christian view of salvation, namely, salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. Why is this so? First of all, this does not cohere with the Muslim understanding of the nature of man. Islam teaches that man is not inherently sinful, and therefore, has no need for salvation as such. Islam also rejects the Christian claim that Jesus was the Son of God who, through his death, reconciled God and man. Most Muslims do not believe Christ died on the cross. They do believe in Christ’s second coming, but its purpose is simply to tell Christians to follow Mohammad. The message of Mohammad is to believe the right things and to perform the correct acts. Islam teaches that man is fundamentally good and that God loves those who obey his will. One must believe that God is absolutely one and that Mohammad is the prophet of God. One must believe that Mohammad is the last prophet. Traditionally, Muslims must also believe in the prophets and their virtues, the angels, the sacred books, the day of resurrection and Qadar, that God decrees everything that happens in the world. This constitutes iman, or faith within Islam.

In conclusion, I have offered a brief overview of the differences in the way Muslims and Christians see the world. Although they both purport to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, their conceptions of this God are quite disparate. It should be stated that there is much in Islam that the Christian can affirm, including its belief in one God, its recognition of Jesus as the virgin born, sinless prophet and messiah of God, and its expectation of a future resurrection and judgment.

However, there is much to distinguish the two worldviews. First, the Muslim perception of God is by no means the same as that revealed in the Bible. Islam portrays God as ultimately unknowable. Allah reveals only His will, but He never reveals Himself. He is never portrayed as a God of love or as a Father to His people. All we can know of Allah is his will. Contrasted with this is the Christian view of God as a personal, rational, knowable being who has created man in his own image. The Christian is able to enter into relationship with God.

Second, though Jesus is presented as a miracle working prophet and messiah, and even without sin, Islam denies that He is the Son of God or Savior of the world. Indeed, it is sometimes denied that Jesus ever died at all, least of all for the sins of the world. There was no need for a sacrificial, substitutionary death since, though mankind is depicted as weak and prone to error, Islam denies that man is a sinner by nature and in need of a Savior, as the Bible so clearly teaches. Humans are capable of submitting to God’s laws and meriting his ultimate approval. In Islam, man needs, not so much a savior, but guidance. Acceptance by God is something we must earn by our works, and therefore one cannot possibly feel secure in salvation from this world. In Islam, salvation is completely “other-worldly” and is to be experienced in the life to come. Contrasted with this view is the Christian’s total dependence on Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for salvation. One can possess the assurance that salvation depends on Christ’s righteousness and not one’s own. While there is a future aspect of Christian salvation, there is also a present aspect as well. Christian belief teaches that a man is radically transformed in this life by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.

It is important to note that both Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. These worldviews make contradictory claims about creation, the fall, and redemption. They answer the important questions with irreconcilable claims: Who is God and what is he like? Who is man and what are we like? What is wrong with the world and why is there so much suffering? What is the answer to man’s suffering and to what is wrong with the world? Either God is knowable or is not. Either God has certain characteristics which make up his essence or he does not. Either man is inherently sinful or he is not. Either Jesus Christ was the son of God, was crucified and died on our behalf, and was resurrected on the third day or he was not. Either we are saved by grace through faith, or we are not.

Both Islam and Christianity make historical claims which are beyond the scope of this discussion. The claims of each are open to investigation. The truthfulness of Christianity depends ultimately upon one monumental historical event – that of the resurrection of Christ. The evidence for this event is overwhelming to the unbiased observer. Christianity not only fits the facts of history, but our fundamental intuitions about morality and ethics, good and evil.

7 Comments »

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 21, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

I have a question concerning this statement: “overwhelming to the unbiased observer.” So if someone were to disagree there would be no possible good reason to disagree, given the evidence? In other words, if a person looked at the evidence (which even as a believer I don’t find impressive) and failed to see the ‘obviousness’ of your conclusion then either 1) their logic/reasoning is faulty or 2) they are simply “biased.” Is this your position?

Comment by Barry Carey

November 21, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

Kevin, Of course, I believe that Christ was actually raised from the dead and I do so on the basis of what I see as overwhelming evidence. All must examine the same evidence and decide for themselves. My position is that if someone looks at the evidence for the resurrection and decides it is not true, they are either unable to overcome their “bias” or they fail to understand the evidence. I would presume others who claim a certain thing to be true would reach those same conclusions.

Comment by doctor(logic)

November 22, 2006 @ 2:18 am

Barry,

What are the odds of a resurrection occurring? 10 billion to 1? There have been about 10 billion people, and (not counting vampires, etc) none are believed to have risen from the days-dead.

Now, what are the odds that the Bible was a pseudo-fabrication like all the other holy books you don’t believe in (e.g., Book of Mormon, Scientology, to name just two recent and obviously fabricated, yet widely believed myths)? Is it a million to one against the Bible being like all these others? I don’t think it is, but if it were, you’ve still got four orders of magnitude to cover before you overcome 10 billion to one odds. That means you cannot rationally conclude that the Resurrection actually happened. Not even if it actually did.

If you do reach such a conclusion, then why not believe with firm conviction that JFK and Elvis are still alive? Or the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot are real? Or the psychic hotline works? The odds of these other things being true are comparable with (or better than) the odds of the Resurrection being true, and a rational man treats like as like. It doesn’t matter whether JFK could actually be alive. It’s just not rational to believe that he is.

Comment by Jeremy

November 22, 2006 @ 10:08 am

Kevin and DL, I think it is overstating the case for the resurrection to say that it is the only rational thing to believe, but I do think it is at least a rational thing to believe, and in my opinion, the most rational, given the evidence. DL, your treatment of probability and your comparisons are naive. Probabilities must both take in your background beliefs, including belief in or openness to belief in God, and the total number of evidences. You are either being dishonest to yourself or have not done any research at all if you think there exists the same evidence for Elvis being alive as for the resurrection of Jesus. Do a google on William Lane Craig’s defense of the resurrection.

Comment by Barry Carey

November 22, 2006 @ 11:28 am

I would also point you to a series I did on miracles here and a series on the resurrection here. I believe I have answered your objections in those posts.

Comment by doctor(logic)

November 26, 2006 @ 8:24 pm

Jeremy,

Your argument is circular. Your background belief in Jesus (and his magical abilities) is based on the Resurrection. You can’t use that same information in your Bayesian analysis in order to show that the Resurrection happened. Sans Resurrection, your background beliefs in Jesus should be comparable with your background beliefs in a myriad of other figures, from King Arthur to Kali.

Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people have claimed that Elvis is still alive due to their own sightings. Are these witnesses independent? No. Almost all of them communicated, if indirectly (e.g., via tabloid reports). They all share 1) the kernel of an idea that Elvis didn’t die, and 2) a wish that he not be dead. It’s a form of mass delusion. What’s the difference between this and the Christian witnesses? Do you think Jesus’s friends wanted to believe he was still alive? That they dearly wished he weren’t dead? I expect they wanted to see Jesus alive a lot more than the Elvis witnesses.

The only “evidence” you have that eyewitness reports were accurate is to be found in books that aim to indoctrinate. Books written by deeply partial witnesses, not by skeptical investigators. There were no scrolls from coeval disbelievers saying “That Jesus was a fraud, but that was a sweet illusion his guys pulled off. I still don’t know how they did it.”

So, background beliefs condemn the NT worse than they would condemn the Elvis sightings.

BTW, I don’t doubt that the first Christians believed in the Resurrection anymore than I doubt that Elvis sighters believe in their own tales.

Comment by doctor(logic)

November 27, 2006 @ 5:32 pm

Barry,

Your hyperlinks didn’t work, but I searched and found your series on miracles.

Your counterexample to Hume was to argue that, if Hume is right, you ought not believe with high probability that you won the lottery, even when you read it printed in the paper. I don’t see how this works at all.

The error rate for misprints is, say, 0.1%. That means there’s a 99.9% probability that the paper is correct, no matter who the winner is, and it’s equally unlikely that any person be a winner. Those odds don’t change just because it’s unlikely that you personally won. Those odds are measured independently of of who the winner is. A Bayesian analysis shows this to be the case.

Of course, it is possible that someone could provide you with a fake newspaper that claimed you were the winner when you were not, but I think we can generically bound this at lower than 300 million to one against for every cycle (because we’ve never seen it happen). Of course, if your buddy, Norm MacDonald, calls to tell you he saw your name printed in the paper’s winner column, you might want to buy a random paper to check on the story. :)

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>