I was wondering if anyone thought Dr. Craig's empty tomb argument would be relevant as a response to something the philosopher of science Philip Kitcher writes in his new book Living with Darwin (Oxford 2007). Here is what he says on page 142:
"The trouble with supernaturalism is that it comes in so many incompatible forms, all of which are grounded in just the same way. To label someone else's cultural history as 'primitive' or 'superstition' (or as both) is easy, until you realize that your basis for believing in the literal truth of the wonderful stories of your own tradition is completely analogous to the grounds of the supposedly unenlightened. There are no marks by which one of these many inconsistent conceptions of the supernatural can be distinguished from the others. Instead we have a condition of perfect symmetry."
What I am wondering is whether you think the traditions are as symmetrical as Kitcher says they are. I'm asking this question here on this forum because I know Dr. Craig believes that Christianity, and not just theism, is the most rational world view to hold. He argues against atheism, but also, as far as I can tell, against the viability of, for example, Islam. It is Dr. Craig's position, isn't it, that there are arguments to be made in favor of Christianity which reveal it to be more plausible than other religious traditions? If this were the case, then it would mean Kitcher is wrong that the traditions are perfectly symmetrical with regard to their rational foundation, right?