Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

Chapter 4, "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited" by John Loftus:

This chapter on the "outsider test for faith" (OTF) is John Loftus' home field, so to speak.  He's covered the ground so many times in the past and there isn't a lot to disagree with here.  The vast majority of what he says, he has learned to say well.  The main idea here is that arguments for a worldview need to be geared towards persuading people who do not already agree with the position, rather than just having inherited a position and then defending it in ways that could defend any arbitrary position.  Seems straight forward and common-sensical enough (and I agree with the Christian objections that this isn't really new), but certain issues do come up between atheists and Christians when various elements are over or underplayed.  Please see atheist reviewer, Ken Pulliam's coverage of the strengths of the chapter. 

To summarize the responses from Christian reviewers that I've responded to in this 99 page post of mine (I've responded to over 200 issues, so please see the table of contents for the overview):  Looney rejected the OTF because he believed that it meant we would have to evaluate every single worldview before accepting one.  Jayman777 accepted the gist of the OTF and then moved on presumably to show that his views passed it.  Randal Rauser accepted the gist of the OTF, but went on to say that Loftus goes too far in presumption and not far enough with all other beliefs.  Steve Hays rejects the OTF because he doesn’t think anyone is an outsider to the gist of his theistic/moral paradigm and that anyone who says otherwise is deliberately suppressing that knowledge.  Jason Engwer accepted the gist of the OTF, but expressed that Loftus goes too far with it.  Paul Manata rejects the OTF because he expected a “Socrates is mortal” kind of logical theorem rather than a probabilistic standard and he also bizarrely insisted that he would be cognitively impaired if he stopped thinking Christian thoughts.  There is a lot of senseless nitpicking, and many instances of Christian reviewers putting forth "outsider tests for belief" that they think Loftus should address. 

Contents of My Review (the "CliffsNote" version):

Is it a very biased assumption to treat every religious text as probably false?

We should treat religious texts with the same standards based on their actual implicit merits.

Don't cultural influences, psychological gimmicks, cognitive biases, and double standards cut equally against atheism?

In context, Hays is the one defending his right not to be sufficiently critical, as well as advocating a degree of certainty in terms of metaphysics well beyond any human's expertise.

Can anyone rise above biases or are all appeals doomed to superficiality?

Hays defaults to incredulity and misrepresentation in order to say that atheists like me believe all critical thinking is necessarily social conditioning that can't be corrected or improved upon.

Does Ben fault TID for succeeding?!

It is obvious that I freely fault and praise TCD and TID where each succeed and/or fail, if only Hays wasn't so intent on ignoring evidence contrary to his convenient narratives of the discussion.

Does Loftus misrepresent Hays by claiming that Hays admitted he only has assumptions and not good reasons?

Technically yes, but practically no.  Hays assumes his theistic tacit knowledge is genuine without argument and so Loftus is vindicated in the end.

Does Hays owe Loftus a spiritual autobiography?

Explaining why one has good reasons to declare things about the mental states of an entire people group wouldn't be a bad idea.

Does TCD declare that Christians are psychotic?

No, Loftus specifically goes out of his way to say the opposite.

If Hays has been defending the Christian faith online since 2004 where has Ben been?

Being an intellectually honest agnostic and atheist blogger since 2005. 

Does TCD fail to define delusion?

Nope, Hays just missed it.

If Christianity is culturally conditioned how can it fit the standard definition of delusional that states delusion is counter-cultural?

Unless Hays wants to say that non-believing countries aren't delusional, he's going to have to accept a slight tweak to the definition as well.

Is there no prima facie presumption that Hays' Christian faith flies in the face of the evidence since he has subjected the TCD to sustained replies?

Technically that would make Hays even more delusional than your average Christian (if Christianity is false) since he is literally flying in the face of a great deal of the evidence and argument against his position.

Should Hays have taken it to the next level in his review of TCD?

Hays' version of attacking it on its own terms was grossly superficial and even the further replies here lack any indication that substance will follow.

Is TID at the same level as TCD? 

I have to say that if TCD aimed low (which wasn't consistently the case), TID aimed even lower and didn't help the case for Christians not being delusional.

Are apostates too biased because they are just trying to justify themselves?

Hays seems to think that the difference between defensive and offensive apologetic strategies he says he employs entitles him to conveniently misrepresent the truth.

Didn't Hays, Manata, and Victor Reppert "execute" the OTF in six different ways?

I don't know what Hays is referring to since they have zero kills by my count (whereas I have hundreds here). 

Isn't it a hollowing bullying appeal to intellectual integrity unless an atheist can justify moral realism?

Hays seems to erroneously think that his disagreement with me over naturalistic moral realism has some impact on my motives.

Does Steve need Ben to affirm him?

I don't recall saying he did.

Is Ben over-focused on the OTF?

I'm only as focused on Hay' criticisms of the OTF as much as Hays is, since I'm covering all the chapters of TCD as well.

Should Hays let Loftus off the hook because of the more sensible things Ben advocates?

Hays doesn't explain why he seems to think every atheist has to pay for Loftus' exaggerations or why we can't both elevate the collective conversation despite historical sins on both sides.

Sh'ld yee shaw yir teeth unless ye can bite?

o_0

I respond to Engwer:

Does a god have to convince people into belief objectively? 

If a god wants a confused world where it's impossible to conclude the Christian worldview is true in a responsible way, then no. 

Do skeptical impressions have to always trump positive impressions of Christianity? 

No, but often when addressed together impartially, there isn't much room for a positive belief in the Christian worldview.

Does Loftus go too far with this OTF?

Engwer notes there is some truth to what Loftus is advocating here, but that some aspects are unhealthy overkill.  I basically agree.

I respond to Manata: 

Does Loftus need to pass 20,000 more OTFs to be consistent?

Not if the overlap of the Christianities dies one death. 

Is the OTF a logical truth or a theorem?

It's a probabilistic rule of thumb designed to simply illustrate a typical religious person's inability to be consistent with their standards of evidence and avoid special pleading they'd never accept anywhere else.

How does Loftus get a "highly likely" from a "very likely?"

Manata corrects the equivalent of a typo!  Yay!

If all religions are probably false, then why bother even taking the OTF?

If you'd like to believe the one you've inherited is honestly true despite the odds, then evaluating it impartially makes perfect sense.

Can't Christianity still be true despite the initial low probability against it?

Yes, just like every other worldview might be true.

Does Loftus' OTF commit the genetic fallacy still?

Manata seems to be under the impression we are likely to learn new math skills from taking drugs.

Doesn't the Bible say we're supposed to know Christianity is true by the Holy Spirit?

Do you listen to con artists and apply the investment justifications suggested by infomercials? 

Isn't the OTF beside the point if you can just present good reasons why Christianity is false?

Presenting reasons Christianity is false is an extension of using consistent standards of evidence and often times mere consistency of standards is what entails that Christianity is false. 

Isn't the OTF too vague?

Only if words don't mean things.

Who would take an "outsider test for philosophy" if it had the same structure as the OTF and what standards would we apply?

I would hope so!  And whatever standards we'd apply, hopefully they'd be consistent.

Is Loftus' OTF conclusion related to his OTF premises?

If being probably correct about your worldview is your goal, then yes. 

Does Loftus disagree with Tarico on whether humans are rational?

Yes, if the Bible contradicts itself when it gives conflicting advice about answering a fool according to his folly.  [In other words, no.]

Aren't a large majority of our culturally inherited beliefs also perfectly rational?

The ones we can verify independently certainly are.

Does the OTF get rid of original thinkers?

Yes, just like health care reform means the government is going to kill grandma.

Are some religions more probable than others?

If only we were allowed to have an opinion on that.

Should we treat beliefs that have a low probability of being true as probably false?

By definition, yes.

Is Manata defending his right to be inconsistent with his standards?

It sure does seem like it.

Would Manata be in a state of cognitive paralysis if he took the OTF?

Most definitely.    But a more reasonable person wouldn't.

Would Loftus take a test to see if his cognitive faculties are reliable?

If he could, he would, but that doesn't give religion a pass.

Does Loftus prove that Manata holds double standards?

Loftus' chapter was mostly about setting the standard, not applying it, or addressing every nuance of Manata's personal convictions.

Is Christianity the only reason we can know anything (as C. S. Lewis said)?

Lewis' unverifiable perspective appears to deny the experience of others.

What happens to the OTF when people vastly agree about things at the expense of atheism?

The reverse of the OTF is not blind acceptance of popular beliefs, especially when those beliefs are beyond the realm of human expertise.

Should we evaluate our moral values as outsiders, should Loftus test the "kill babies for fun" moral theory, and are moral relativists in denial of substantial moral common ground across cultural barriers?  

Manata manages to address his own materialistic anxieties if only he'd read himself in context of his other related statements.

Does Loftus' OTF fail at every level?

Nope.  Manata's rebuttal does though.

I respond to Manata's 1st response to Loftus:

Should Manata care that he personally inspired the OTF?

Maybe. Jesus might be mad.

Why can't Loftus see that Manata just wants to point out that the OTF is so horrible?

Perhaps because just about everything Manata has brought up is pretty trivial?

Is Loftus the equivalent of a religious zealot?

Maybe, but it doesn't invalidate the OTF.

Did Loftus reject every Christianity with his insider test for faith?

Manata didn't show that Loftus' ITF didn't invalidate important aspects of most mainstream Christianities.

Would Plantinga's extended A/C model make Loftus premise 2 false?

Not really, but Manata should be proving we have mental god detectors rather than lamely criticizing the OTF.

Is there still no connection between premise 1 and premise 2 of Loftus' OTF?

Premise 2 is pretty much contained in premise one.

Should religious beliefs be justified by other beliefs?

All beliefs are subject to the checks and balances of other beliefs.

Is a possibility a probability?

Quibbling is quibbling.

Is someone holding a winning lottery ticket rational for believing they have it despite the odds against that being true?

The OTB would apply before you know the winning numbers.  Showing the winning numbers is the equivalent of passing the OTB.

Is the OTF too uninteresting to take seriously?

Oh, it's boring as hell, but then again many important things are.

I respond to Manata's 2nd response to Loftus:

Can Loftus appeal to Eller, Tarico, and Long if he has not responded to TID criticisms of those previous chapters?

No, but I did.

Does Loftus admit that some religions are more probable than others.

Yes, but I didn't.

Did Loftus tell us why all religions are equipossible? 

No, but I did.

Would Manata's brain still explode if he ever dared take the OTF?

Yes.  And that's exactly why we want him to take it immediately. 

Random:

Loftus' scientism blunder?

Loftus actually advocates "weak scientism" but he is too easily quote-mine-able otherwise.

Loftus gets it wrong:  Was the atheist, Carl Sagan, making an extraordinary claim when he asserts that the cosmos is all there is?

The short answer:  Yes, he was.  Insert agnosticism instead.

Outro:  My Rating:  4 out of 5 stars

Despite the polemical missteps, the vast majority of what Loftus says works just fine.  Continue reading →

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture. 

Contents of My Review (the "CliffNote" version):

Random:

Outro:  3 out of 5 stars.

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture.

Atheist reviewer, Jim Walker, explains:

What can I say.  This chapter is awesome.  I'm sure many Christians will manage to find ways to misunderstand anyway, but I think for the most part this will end up being their own fault in this case.  This post will focus on the misapprehensions that I can find around the internet in response to Valerie Tarico's chapter.

Contents of My Review (the "CliffNote" version):

Random:

Outro:  5 out of 5 stars.

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture.

[note:  Eller and Loftus' responses have been rolled into the post so you don't have to fish through all the comments]

Unfortunately I have to agree with one reviewer, Greg Peterson, on Amazon about chapter 1:

That's actually good news, since I was a little disgruntled.  I knew there were great chapters ahead, but I didn't know how many weak chapters there would be.  Apparently it's all up and up from here (see chapter 2, for instance)! 

Contents of My Review (the "CliffNote" version):

Random:

Outro:  3 out of 5 stars

Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture.

[note:  Loftus' responses have been rolled into the post so you don't have to fish through all the comments]

Contents of My Review (the "CliffNote" version):

Random:

Outro:  Not rated. 

Intro: 

This series is an atheist review of an important anti-Christian apologetics book, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  My review will tend to explicitly focus on the weaknesses of the esteemed skeptical anthology (unless the given chapter is just awesome, then I'll focus on Christian arguments) and should be seen as supplementing the positive reviews from folks like Ken Pulliam, Jim Walker and the many 5 star reviews on Amazon.  With all the hype there needs to be a range of internet contributions and sober assessment. 

How is the substance of the book framed?  Is the polemical strategy a success?  Have the most typical Christian objections to certain skeptical themes been addressed or ignored and amplified carelessly?  Have well known inflammatory hot spots in the debate been dealt with tactfully?  Have common atheist biases and prejudices been checked or are they overwhelming the actual arguments?  Have the same standards that apply to Christians equally applied to the authors?  Are the arguments in the book persuasive to outsiders or do they merely reinforce atheist group-think?  Are weaker arguments distractingly in the mix with stronger arguments?  Has an adult conversation been started/continued or have the age-old, ugly political cycles been perpetuated?  Are mainstream Christian readers treated with respect as though they could be smart, informed people who think their worldview stands a chance in the debate?  Would I recommend this book to a Christian friend or family member without having to apologize for its contents?  Etc.  Those are some of the important questions I'll be addressing. 

I may briefly summarize the strong points of each chapter and add my comments if that helps readers understand whatever issues come up.  Occasionally I'll point out things that I just think are interesting in their own right (or things I don't understand and need help with).  Also, I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (as sort of informal post-market research) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to advancing our collective conversation about these important roadblocks to solidarity in our culture.  

[note:  Editor, John Loftus' responses have been rolled into the post so you don't have to fish through all the comments.]

Overall, Dan Barker gives an adequate foreword. 

Contents of My Review (the "CliffNote" version):

Random:

Outro:  Not rated.