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):
Loftus overstates a claim: Are all religions exclusivistic?
I respond to Christian reviewer, jayman777: What about religious people who convert for thoughtful reasons?
I respond to Christian reviewer, Paul Manata: Is Loftus' application of the OTF to Christianity incoherent?
I respond to Christian reviewer, Steve Hays: Is the OTF unfair because of Loftus' mission in life?
Loftus overstates a claim: Are Christians and atheists too delusional to get it right?
Loftus is too simplistic:
I respond to Hays: Do many Muslims claim that demons inspired Christianity just like many Christians claim demons inspired Islam?
I respond to Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer: How does the OTF apply to appeals to modern paranormal phenomena?
I respond to Hays:
Did Hays and Engwer call Loftus demon-possessed?
I respond to jayman777:
I respond to Christian reviewer, Randal Rauser:
Should we apply the OTB to politics and ethics?
Should people explore other political viewpoints?
Should people build entire worldviews based on consistent standards of evidence?
How much should geographical distribution matter to apply the OTF?
I respond to Hays:
Isn't pointing out inconsistencies in your opponent's position a basic element of refutation?
Are there no outsiders to the fundamental truths of Christianity?
Is the position of agnosticism cheating if there is all that evidence for a god?
Should Hays even be trying to connect with his audience?
Do proponents of the OTF have Hays' best interests at heart?
Does the Christian god jump start everyone with clear knowledge of his existence?
Don't unbelievers often act crazy?
What's the difference between natural theology and natural revelation?
Can't natural revelation entail inferential knowledge and/or innate knowledge?
Politics: Isn't the OTF just a juvenile dare to take an unfair test?
How can atheists shame or praise a person's relationship to their epistemic duties?
Is it Ben's fault that the discussion is personal?
What kind of argument would it take to properly address the OTF?
Does Hays legitimize religious experience in general?
Is there anything wrong with looking for confirmation of a subjective experience?
Isn't rigorous correspondence arbitrary?
Couldn't a dream about the future be allegorical?
Isn't an argument from experience meant to only be convincing to the person having it?
Doesn't raw experience not interpret itself?
Doesn't the Bible have an explanation for religious confusion?
Can't the Bible merely record superstition that it doesn't necessarily embrace?
Does a Christian have to take responsibility for Scripture since they didn't write it?
Can moral relativists make charges of barbarism?
Doesn't Hays address Carrier's moral realism later in TID?
Hasn't Hays already dealt with the issue of the internal critique of a moral relativist?
What does it mean to “take responsibility” for something that’s not common ground?
Would we not apply Loftus' standards in any other field of inquiry?
Does Loftus prejudge believing in the Christian faith as "gullible?"
Doesn't Loftus need to justify epistemic duties with an OTB?
If life just ends, doesn't that affect one's capacity to enjoy it in the meantime?
What if you know that after your amazing vacation you will be kidnapped and tortured?
Do atheists have principled motivation to tend to epistemic duties?
Isn't a meaningless life a recipe for gratuitous suffering?
Don't atheists just distract themselves from this misery and live a lie?
Aren't the rules of an atheist's life artificial?
Is Ben's contribution to this cultural conversation foolish?
Can anyone rise above biases or are all appeals doomed to superficiality?
Does Ben fault TID for succeeding?!
Does TCD declare that Christians are psychotic?
If Hays has been defending the Christian faith online since 2004 where has Ben been?

Does TCD fail to define delusion?

Is Ben over-focused on the OTF?
Should Hays let Loftus off the hook because of the more sensible things Ben advocates?
Sh'ld yee shaw yir teeth unless ye can bite?
I respond to Engwer:
Do skeptical impressions have to always trump positive impressions of Christianity?
Does Loftus go too far with this OTF?
I respond to Manata:
Is the OTF a logical truth or a theorem?
How does Loftus get a "highly likely" from a "very likely?"
If all religions are probably false, then why bother even taking the OTF?
Can't Christianity still be true despite the initial low probability against it?
Does Loftus' OTF commit the genetic fallacy still?
Doesn't the Bible say we're supposed to know Christianity is true by the Holy Spirit?
Isn't the OTF beside the point if you can just present good reasons why Christianity is false?
Is Loftus' OTF conclusion related to his OTF premises?
Does Loftus disagree with Tarico on whether humans are rational?
Aren't a large majority of our culturally inherited beliefs also perfectly rational?
Does the OTF get rid of original thinkers?
Are some religions more probable than others?
Should we treat beliefs that have a low probability of being true as probably false?
Is Manata defending his right to be inconsistent with his standards?
Would Manata be in a state of cognitive paralysis if he took the OTF?

Would Loftus take a test to see if his cognitive faculties are reliable?
Does Loftus prove that Manata holds double standards?
Is Christianity the only reason we can know anything (as C. S. Lewis said)?
What happens to the OTF when people vastly agree about things at the expense of atheism?
Why can't Loftus see that Manata just wants to point out that the OTF is so horrible?
Is Loftus the equivalent of a religious zealot?
Did Loftus reject every Christianity with his insider test for faith?
Would Plantinga's extended A/C model make Loftus premise 2 false?
Is there still no connection between premise 1 and premise 2 of Loftus' OTF?
Should religious beliefs be justified by other beliefs?
Is a possibility a probability?
Is the OTF too uninteresting to take seriously?
I respond to Manata's 2nd response to Loftus:
Does Loftus admit that some religions are more probable than others.
Did Loftus tell us why all religions are equipossible?
Would Manata's brain still explode if he ever dared take the OTF?

Random:
Loftus gets it wrong: Was the atheist, Carl Sagan, making an extraordinary claim when he asserts that the cosmos is all there is?
Outro: My Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Recent Comments