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.

I have created a study guide and reference all of Babinski's links: 

It should be noted up front that it is a mistake to try to win every single battle here, at least in an absolute sense.  A more sensible reader would do their best, verse by verse, to allow for various levels of uncertainty.  I haven't counted, but let's say there are a hundred relevant verses here.  And on the vast majority of them, even if we can't be absolutely certain the author believed in what he was saying, it may turn out there are strong indications.  What business do we have going with a weaker explanation in every case?  There are certainly problems of ambiguity to deal with.  Despite the apologetic list of excuses that could defend virtually any ancient document from these kinds of false cosmological beliefs, the authors are mixing in poetry, metaphor, and possibly referring to things in anachronistic ways uncritically.  There are also at least 66 documents in the Protestant Bible with lots of authors who may well have their own perspectives, cosmological convictions (or lack thereof), and vantage points in history.  We don't necessarily know when exactly any of that begins or ends and so our claims need to be careful and provisional.  And that's also why looking at the overall case is so important rather than over-focusing on vaguely possible interpretations here and there. 

Note, I have yet to update this with responses from The Infidel Delusion, but I will be sure and do that when I find time.

Outro:  My Rating:  5 out of 5 stars

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 improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

This is a very strong chapter and a great lead in to rocking the boat of Christian confidence in the inerrancy of Scripture.  While Babinski didn't address outlandish young earth creationist theories like Russell Humphries' White Hole Cosmology (where the firmament is actually 14 billion light years away, surrounding the entire universe) as I might have initially preferred (or just been looking forward to), he presented such a preponderance of evidence that it is really easy to see how the view fails.  In other words, it's a strong case that seems prepared to knock down just about anything that gets in its path.  The discussion is interesting.  The footnotes are good.  And all around, I'm happy with this chapter. 

Babinski was even kind enough to answer all my random questions in email, provide some extra material for my reading consumption that he had to leave out of his chapter, and donated some images to spruce things up a bit.  Many thanks!  All in all this familiarized myself with the content in some detail and may be engaging reading for anyone who really wants to duke it out on either side of the issue.  And I think I've shown how apologetic responses fail.  Enjoy.

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

[Note:  Links to future posts will not work until they are made public.]  Continue reading →

Intro:

Look out Alvin Plantinga and affiliates.  Your reign of sophistry is over (*giggles*).  I promised to go back to this, and I meant it.  I do eventually get back to things when I'm ready for it (or when I'm not really busy, you know, not being online). 

When evaluating whether or not the Christian hypothesis that a good God exists is legitimate, there are many approaches.  There are evidential arguments from evil, Biblical arguments from evil, doctrinal arguments from evil, and the ever elusive logical argument from evil which has to be airtight.  Christians and intellectually honest atheists (and whomever else is interested in a solid argument) should be concerned with these five questions (and maybe others) when evaluating my argument map:

 A:  Is my definition of God good enough for this argument?

B:  Is my definition of moral perfection good enough for this argument?

C:  Have I sufficiently established that at least "one drop" of evil or greater exists?

D:  Have I committed any logical fallacies in my reasoning?

E:  Have I boxed in all possible objections (even unknown ones) in a perfectly logical way?

It should also be noted that this is an ontological and logical argument from evil that necessarily incorporates the concept of divine simplicity as well. 

Notice that all objections are labeled with numbers and letters and it would be greatly appreciated if any interested parties would label their responses or objections appropriately based on the established system.  Notation may slide around a bit as the argument map becomes more elaborate and new objections and responses are plugged in.  Please point out my spelling errors or if I mess up the numbering system (or if you have a better idea for a numbering system, please present it).

Enjoy (click on the image to embiggen): 

        

Archive:

        

Outro:

I will be reposting revisions right here!

If successful, I hope to prove that the entire enterprise of investigating and/or defending any theodicy of any kind is a philosophical fool's errand. 

Ben

Either Christian reviewer, Randal Rauser is reading my review and copying off of me, or I know how Christians tend to think, and atheist, John Loftus perhaps owes me an apology (though I doubt it, given how rude/nice he was to Rauser in Rauser's comments).  How many prophecies have to come true before Loftus' claim that it is "impossible to predict" falls completely flat? 

See Rauser's latest:

Compare to virtually everything I complained about in David Eller's chapter:

Honestly since I had to copy/paste the majority of quotes from Rauser's review of Eller's chapter to even further supplement my criticisms, that pointing out the specific correspondences in detail is a bit much.  Eller has no argument other than his own authority and personal incredulity and his conspiratorial tone is ridiculous.  The entire front end of The Christian Delusion is loaded with atheist bark, and too little bite.  Rauser points this out quite hilariously in multiple ways. 

Loftus struggles to do damage control on his blog, but only seems to prove that Eller needed to play the content and authority of his chapter more sensibly and in light of the rest of the book.  It's a weak chapter.  It's a bad start for the book.  There are much better chapters.  That's just how it is.  Go reality, go!

Man, I really need to finish my review so I can predict the rest of Rauser's reactions!

Ben

Oops.  Called it again.  See Randal Rauser's: 

Versus my heads up on the issue:

It was pretty obvious that argument was going to fall apart on impact.  If he wanted to say that Christianity hasn't really stood the test of time against skeptical attacks, maybe Loftus in his introduction should have addressed the mainstream with something like this to help frame the arguments in the book instead:

What about what Loftus does get right in his intro?  Rauser even says:

Which is pretty much what I said:

So, the lesson of the story here again:  Content good.  Framing...bad.  When you frame things poorly, you end up talking more about that than anything else, since you didn't set yourself up properly.

I also added a response in the random section in my review of Loftus' introduction:

And I provide links there to various random issues about naturalism he brought up.

Ben

In case some of my readers are unaware, I'm not just picking on John Loftus with my review of the Christian Delusion.  I'm also actively defending him.  Weird, huh?  It's like there's a plus and a minus column  to everyone n stuff.  Loftus has made some embittered enemies over the years.  While I'm sure it's partially from his immature behavior, that doesn't justify misrepresenting him.  Loftus has been very open about his personal failings in his original book, "Why I Became an Atheist" and anti-Loftusian Christians have formed an anti-Loftusian group think narrative that would like to completely separate the emotional reasons of his deconversion from his intellectual reasons (to the extent that he must have no intellectual reasons).  And they claim Loftus even admits this!  Well not quite.  They just lack reading comprehension.*

*actually, they're just really biased against him.  I'm sure they read the Bible just fine.

So the following is my latest comment to one such Loftus Debunker. 

Whoops, I totally let this thread get away from me. I do apologize. Anyway, if it's not too much trouble, I think I can point out where you may be going astray in your interpretation of Loftus. You said:

It seems you are confusing your subjective reaction to the evidence to the age of the universe with someone else's. You can't just trivialize the impact because you happened to have a different response. If I'm going to take for granted that it has little to no impact on you, then why shouldn't I take Loftus' testimony equally seriously if he claims it had a more significant impact on him? We're not mind readers and plenty of people lose their fundamentalist faith in Christianity over the age of the earth.

Dude, that's just not what he says at all. He says the exact opposite. Maybe he's flagrantly lying, but that's just not what he *says.* He says there were three reasons and one of those reasons is (page 24), "Larry brought new information into my life."

However, not to be dissuaded with facts, you say:

Now we have EVEN MORE cherry-picking on your part to fit your desired narrative. Do I have to quote it all? (page 26-27) "While [Larry] didn't convince me of much at the time, he did convince me of one solid truth: the universe is as old as scientists say it is [...] This was the first time I really considered the theological implications of the age of the universe. Two corollaries of that idea started me down the road to being the atheist I am today." He then elaborates on those and THEN says it took those two years you mentioned to take full effect. In other words, it wasn't abrupt and arbitrary as you portray it, completely unrelated to the Larry incident. It was a gradual progression of unraveling his faith until it "all just came crashing down."

Dude. People are emotional/intellectual agents. You can't fully separate one from the other. You are blaming him for being *human.* Aren't you human, too? Don't you know what it is like?

Well, okay. Easy enough: (page 26) "I was supposed to be smarter and better than that, or so I thought. How could I have done this? How could I have an affair with her and sin like that against my God and against my family? How could I allow my reputation to be sullied by claims that I and raped her?" We call that blaming ourselves in these parts. Don't know what you Christians think. So as you can see, I've quoted right up until the point where Loftus ALSO blames God. Apparently there's a little rule in your book, that says if you blame God, by definition you can't possibly be blaming yourself, too.

Loftus isn't of that school of thought. And he continues that theme even in his most recent book, "The Christian Delusion." (page 198) "Christians just want to blame human beings, not God, no matter what the problem is. [...] both sides involved are probably at fault to some degree."

Oh, but you still have MORE excuses to suit your pejorative narrative don't you? Not good ones though. Let's look at your hairsplitting:

But I'm not going to let you get away with that. Because if we go with your theory here:

We have to note that Loftus must only be QUESTIONING, *not* blaming God in the "IMMEDIATELY follows up with" part. Because, and I quote, "The biggest question of all was why God..." [emphasis mine]

Ta da! You're wrong.

But you STILL protest. How many convenient misrepresentations later? Just one more:

Well, I quoted that part above. Page 26. You just explained it away. You arbitrarily labeled that "questioning" and the blaming God part "not questioning" to fit your anti-atheist prejudices. The evidence is right there in front of you. You've just trained yourself not to see it.

You have no case. Why can't you just let John Loftus be the fallible human being that he is? It doesn't mean you can't disagree with his worldview.

Ben

I'm hard at work on my "study guide" for Ed Babinski's well-executed chapter 5, "The Cosmology of the Bible."  Stay tuned for that...  

Meanwhile, since I've posted my criticisms of the first section of "The Christian Delusion", it seems three of my prophecies have come true:

Obviously it's impossible to write a perfect book that deals with every objection, but that doesn't mean you carelessly throw Christians red meat while you are attempting to convince them they are delusional.  Maybe I'll just take a magic marker and blot out those tidbits if I want to lend my copy out...

Ben 

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.

The following is a "CliffsNotes" page of my review.  TCD has 5 different sections, so I'll be breaking this up accordingly (although I've lumped in Dan Barker's Foreword and John Loftus' Introduction here).  I've copied and collected all the contents pages from each post so there can be a meta-overview that is easily accessible.  It will be easy for those interested to have an idea of the book's various failings and will also work well for me to skim through to find links to particular sections when I need to self-link in future posts. 

If anyone knows the html coding for collapsing sections of a post, I'd love to apply it here. 

Note, you can search the entirety of my review (which is already a book in length on its own, just by chapter 5) with this custom google search I've set up.

Contents of this Contents Page:

Dan Barker's Foreword:

Random:

Outro:  Not rated.

Introduction, by John Loftus:

Random:

Outro:  Not rated.

The introduction amounts to sloppy, educated sh*t talk.  Loftus wants to intimidate and overwhelm average Christian readers, but is probably going to cause himself more problems than it's worth.

Chapter 1, "The Cultures of Christianities," by David Eller:

Random:

Outro:  3 out of 5 stars

Chapter 2, "Christian Belief through the Lens of Cognitive Science," by Valerie Tarico:

Chapter 3: "The Malleability of the Human Mind," by Jason Long:

Random:

Outro:  3 out of 5 stars.

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

Loftus revisits David Eller's chapter 1 and Jason Long's chapter 3:  For Better and Worse?

Loftus seems to manage to retroactively save Long's chapter, and eventually says all the things Eller should have said in his chapter, but still quotes more Eller uncritically.

I respond to Christian reviewer, Looney: Do we have to evaluate all possible worldviews before becoming an atheist?

The short answer is no.  One does not have to evaluate all possible worldviews in order to have a convincing case for a particular worldview. 

Loftus overstates a claim:  Are all religions exclusivistic?

Since a great many religions are not mutually exclusive (even in method), Loftus' OTF is left a bit fuzzier than he presents it.

I respond to Christian reviewer, jayman777: What about religious people who convert for thoughtful reasons?

I tediously show how Loftus creates unnecessary problems for himself by lingering on this issue rather than directing readers to an actual intellectual battleground.  This creates the appearance of a "no-true-rationalist" fallacy.

I respond to Christian reviewer, Paul Manata:  Is Loftus' application of the OTF to Christianity incoherent?

Short answer:  No.  Manata pulls two Loftus quotes out of context.

I respond to Christian reviewer, Steve Hays:  Is the OTF unfair because of Loftus' mission in life?

Appeal to motives doesn't invalidate a fair standard.

 

Loftus overstates a claim:  Are Christians and atheists too delusional to get it right?

Human psychology seems to be portrayed as completely helpless and it's no surprise that Christians get the idea that they are supposed to "snap out of it" because we hypocritically said so.

Loftus is too simplistic: 

Are Christians really methodological naturalists when it comes to other religions?

I imagine most Christian intellectuals who will read this book will likely not be so strictly confined.  And even if they are, long standing apologetic alternative supernatural explanations are not hard for them to find. 

I respond to Hays:  Do many Muslims claim that demons inspired Christianity just like many Christians claim demons inspired Islam?

Hays bizarrely tries to deny it with a few variations of hairsplitting, but fails.

I respond to Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer:  How does the OTF apply to appeals to modern paranormal phenomena?

If mainstream science or scholarship was against the position of your opponents, typically you'd dismiss them outright. 

I respond to Hays: 

Isn't methodological naturalism presumptive?

Hays wants to portray it as covert atheism even though it is the most responsible open ended research program possible even if some version of supernaturalism happens to be true.

Do atheists get to dictate common ground?

If Hays really wants to put Hiter 'staches on atheists for saying that gods, angels, devils, and magic aren't common ground, more power to him (to the demise of his credibility, that is).

Are all rare things supernatural?

Um...no...but supernatural things have to be admitted by all to at least be rare.

 

In the Christian worldview, doesn't the materialistic world only work because God makes it work?

The materialistic world is our common ground and explaining why it is the way it is is a debate to be had. 

 

Can distant third-parties rule out the miraculous?

Should distant third-parties who believe in the miraculous on this absentee basis? 

 

How can atheists appeal to probability without solving the problem of induction?

Perhaps when Christians solve the problem of induction that will be a fair question.

What about the psychological probability about whether every Christian who claims to have seen a miracle is delusional?

Without consistency of standards (a la OTF), every cloud of anecdotal hearsay would generate an ontological artifact from Bigfoot to UFOs.

Is the most responsible way to investigate miracles to just wait around and see if they happen?

Have they happened yet?  Have they happened yet?  Have they happened yet?  No.  Hmmm...miracles seem rare [begin conversation over again]

How can methodological naturalism have precedence over supernaturalism when there are also many competing naturalistic worldviews?

The materialistic world is literally our backyard, the differences between views on them is not so great, and all naturalistic worldviews would be falsified with the vindication of just one supernatural claim.

Shouldn't the best explanation in any case have precedence?

When ambiguity and probability are not relevant factors Hays point here would matter.  Obviously if we have good evidence, then we have good evidence.

 

Did Hays and Engwer call Loftus demon-possessed?

No, but Loftus' inference was not completely unjustified since Hays is known for making those kinds of accusations.

Is all Christian anecdotal evidence of the miraculous so easily invalidated?

Loftus blows off a huge issue in 9 words without explaining exactly how Christians are supposed to deal with the issue. 

I respond to jayman777: 

 

Should moral and political beliefs be based on the scientific method?

To an extent, when required.

 

Would atheists doubt evolution if the demographics of science were like religion?

I would hope so.

 

Does the Western belief in "external reality" pass the outsider test for belief?

Yes, but not quite Loftus' version of it.  See Richard Carrier's response instead.

I respond to Christian reviewer, Randal Rauser:

Would an OTB on perceptual fallacies mean we should treat all of our perception as probably false?

Yes.  Fortunately, OTBs can be passed. 

Should we apply the OTB to politics and ethics?

Yes.  Next stupid question.

If we applied an OTB to politics would we all have to be anarchists?

No, it just means we can't treat our inherited political system as necessarily the gospel truth.

Should people explore other political viewpoints?

Yes.  Next stupid question.

Should people build entire worldviews based on consistent standards of evidence?

Yes.  Next stupid question.

Is the OTF unfair to Christians while letting atheists off the hook?

No, because the default setting is agnosticism and guess what, epistemology is hard. 

Is the OTF the one stop fix for critical thinking?

No and Loftus never said it was.

Aren't some of the claims of metaphysical naturalism extraordinary in nature, too?

Yes, and that's what science is for (to rigorously pass difficult OTBs).

 

Is Loftus inconsistent when he says that atheists can't take an outsider test because there are too many other perspectives out there?

Not really, since it doesn't take much to become an agnostic insider.

How much should geographical distribution matter to apply the OTF?

Responsible people subject all their most important beliefs to scrutiny so it doesn't really matter what the exact thresholds are.

I respond to Hays: 

Why is Steve Hays so dense?

Using various quotes from Hays, I demonstrate some of the reasons why this is such a difficult conversation to have with him. 

 

Did Loftus never consider an OTB?

Hays bizarrely pretends like this issue wasn't already explained in Loftus' chapter.

Should we consider Loftus even-handed?

Turns out, Hays  just didn't believe Loftus applies OTBs in practice.

Is Ben's unquestionable axiom methodological atheism?

Rather than impress us with his smashing sense of fairness, Hays merely makes accusations he can't back up. 

Isn't pointing out inconsistencies in your opponent's position a basic element of refutation?

Sure, but in this case, if Loftus is personally inconsistent that doesn't tell anyone else whether they should be or not, so it's just an irrelevant personal attack. 

Is James McGrath a faithless axe-grinder?

Hays appears to be offended by McGrath's use of the Golden Rule in terms of being fair with competing religious claims. 

Is there no way to be more neutral than someone else?

Hays demonizes agnosticism as though every possible position is equally biased just because it can be called a position.

Are Hays' beliefs exempt from the OTF if he doesn't advocate the standard himself?

I can't seem to find anywhere in the laws of logic where it says it's okay for only Steve Hays to assert his conclusion.

Are there no outsiders to the fundamental truths of Christianity?

Hays' real problem with the OTF is that he thinks we all already know he is right.

 

Is the position of agnosticism cheating if there is all that evidence for God?

If there is so much evidence for God, then there's no reason that evidence cannot be presented to pass the OTF for those of us who are "confused." 

 

Should Hays even be trying to connect with his audience?

One wonders what the point is if not.

Are Hays' theistic intuitions and inferences from natural revelation exempt from critical scrutiny? 

Hays can't just assume we all have the same intuitions and so if the arguments from natural theology actually work, they can be presented to pass the OTF.

Is it hypocrisy for Hays to make sweeping statements about every nonbeliever, but object when nonbelievers do that about believers?

Yes, especially when he can't prove that he is in a position to know better and can easily be shown to ignore immediate contrary evidence to fit his ideological prejudice.

Can atheists charge Christians with hypocrisy?

Even if atheism has no moral basis, that doesn't mean Christians can be hypocritical on their own terms.

How can Ben say that he knows that all Christians inherited their faith?

I'm defending the premise of the OTF that says the vast majority of them probably did and that any further unseen mechanisms (like the Holy Spirit) would have to be justified with arguments that have more prima facie weight than the assumption of enculturalization.

Do proponents of the OTF have Hays' best interests at heart?

I don't think consistent rational thinking is going to kill Hays and plenty of people survive the journey to nonbelief.

Does everyone have to rigorously justify their worldview to have justified beliefs?

No, but if you are going to make claims well beyond the realm of human expertise (or include a lot of "I'm not that sures"), then you have to have your worldview justifications sorted out.

 

Does God jump start everyone with clear knowledge of his existence?

The Bible says that demons know God exists and shudder, but can all humans be expected to do the same kind of confidence-based shuddering?

 

How does Ben know he's not a brain-in-a-vat?

Hays avoids taking responsibility for his claim that he knows the mental states of nonbelievers with this philosophical red herring that has been addressed elsewhere.

 

Is it okay for Hays to make statements about the mental states of unbelievers since he has Divine Revelation on his side?

Am I allowed to say I have a crystal ball that tells me Christianity is false (and that Hays knows it) without actually proving it?   

Has Hays proved that he has access to genuine Divine Revelation on his blog somewhere?

If Hays has such arguments on his blog, then he should be able to present them to pass the OTF.

 

Are nonbelievers who claim that they don't know that God exists just like criminals who deny their guilt?

Since Hays presents no evidence to pass the OTF, he can't quite justify calling us criminals, now can he?

 

Does universal revelation imply universal belief?

Hays said we all know it's true, so yes.

Don't people live in denial all the time?

People live in a lot of different kinds of mental states all the time and the evidence from nonbelievers (and everyone else) reflects this spectrum.

 

If Loftus can say that all Christians are delusional why can't Hays say that all nonbelievers are living in denial of the truths of theism?

Hays doesn't think he has to present any evidence to show this, whereas Loftus does (in addition to probably allowing for people being honestly mistaken, whereas there's no such thing for Hays on nonbelievers). 

Don't unbelievers act just like the Bible predicts?

Some do, but not all of them.

Why would moral relativists like Loftus, Eller, and Avalos spend so much time trying to convince others to believe and behave like they do?

Even when atheists aren't moral relativists, Hays just has an excuse for that as well.

Aren't moral relativists who act inconsistently trying to evade an unwelcome truth?

Having a somewhat inconsistent moral paradigm is normal for pretty much everyone and hardly evidence they know Hays' god exists.

Doesn't our fallen human nature explain why believers can be found to struggle with the existence of God?

Wouldn't that give humanity an excuse for not knowing that God exists since our mental faculties are corrupted beyond our control?

Is the lack of denial of the existence of physical objects a bad example to compare to the denial of the existence of God?

It can't be a bad example since the existence of God is supposed to be clear and we are supposed to be without excuse.

Wouldn't a better example be the existence of the past?

To even have a conversation everyone recognizes the necessary trust we put in belief in the past and theists can only hope to argue like that for God's utility in much more ambiguous philosophical territory.

Don't unbelievers often act crazy?

Not proportionately more so than believers, as far as I know.

What's the difference between natural theology and natural revelation?

Hays says he's appealing to revelation, but that's an interpretation based on whether or not the arguments from natural theology actually work.

Can't there be subliminal inferences from natural revelation that are more primary than the arguments from natural theology?

How are we supposed to know what the correct subliminal inferences are when they differ unless the arguments from natural theology actually work?

Does Hays not have to explain how he knows that all nonbelievers are living in denial, because the OTF is a cookie-cutter standard?

The OTF is open to any Christian who doesn't fit the "mold" to pass it, and Hays still has to explain how he knows the divine revelation he appeals to is genuine.

Do Christians not need formal arguments to justify their Christian beliefs?

Christian beliefs are not conservative claims about reality (that are well outside the realm of human expertise) and many people have different kinds of innate intuitions and subliminal mental processes contrary to Christian doctrine.

Since TID is only meant to be apologetic defense, does Hays need to unpack any of the evidence for belief in divine revelation since it is secondary anyway?

Hays is just arguing for his right to not justify why Christians believe since he believes his actual arguments are secondary.

 

Why doesn't Ben just read the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology if he's so interested in the arguments from natural theology?

I am already reading that book, but that doesn't mean those arguments are convincing.

Can't natural revelation entail inferential knowledge and/or innate knowledge?

Either way makes no difference to the overall criticism.

Politics:  Isn't the OTF just a juvenile dare to take an unfair test?

There's nothing juvenile or unfair about epistemic responsibility.

Didn't Ben misrepresent Hays' argument against atheistic epistemic duties?

Hays doesn't understand that he is appealing to motivations to care about the truth and erroneously assumes such motivations have to be absolute to be sufficient (or principled) motivations.

How can atheists shame or praise a person's relationship to their epistemic duties?

Since Christians supposedly share the value of truth, any Christian who fails to live up to that standard intentionally should be considered shameful regardless of whether shame is justified outside of that context.

Is it Ben's fault that the discussion is personal?

No one is twisting Hays' arm to take the OTF, but if someone wants to know my opinion on how shameful it is to neglect your epistemic duties, my answer is available. 

What kind of argument would it take to properly address the OTF?

Instead of Hays' misapprehension of the framing of Loftus' argument, I suggest the basic template response I think that a responsible Christian ought to take.

Aren't Christians being justified in what they believe and convincing nonbelievers to become believers separate issues?

Not really, since the reasons that you present to yourself to believe should be pretty much the same ones you present to someone else. 

Does Hays legitimize religious experience in general?

He says he doesn't, but then doesn't tell us how to tell Christian religious experiences from other brands of religious experiences.

Do prophetic dreams have to be religious?

No, and I never said otherwise.

Is the argument from religious experience sufficient to justify belief in God or is it inconclusive?

I compare Hays' position to Kai-man Kwan's from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

Is there anything wrong with looking for confirmation of a subjective experience?

No, but the perils of confirmation bias need to be taken seriously.

Dreams:  Do we have to be able to justify subjective experiences like dreams that no one else can verify?

Verification from categorically analogous subjective experiences will do.

Isn't it easy to confirm that a dream is prophetic?

Dumb luck needs to be distinguished from actual prophetic accuracy. 

Aren't some things too coincidental to be merely coincidental?

Possibly, but keep in mind that humans are horrible statistics machines.

Isn't rigorous correspondence arbitrary?

There are different ways to verify that dreams are prophetic and rigorous correspondence over time is one of them if the dreams in and of themselves are somewhat vague.

Couldn't a dream about the future be allegorical?

There could be many types of prophetic dreams, but the more abstract, the more difficult it will be to sort fact from fictional correspondence.

What about Joseph's dream about the 7 year famine in Egypt?

That story is hearsay and irrelevant to the conversation.

Isn't it solipsistic to be distrusting of your experiences?

Shouldn't we trust the experiences that show how fallible and unreliable our minds can be? 

Isn't an argument from experience meant to only be convincing to the person having it?

Formerly religious people have had what seem to be analogous religious experiences that they didn't believe they could justify as genuine.

Don't apologists also turn to public lines of evidence?

Then why not present that evidence to pass the OTF?

Doesn't it cut equally against atheism if the brain is capable of generating all sorts of anomalous experiences?

No, because atheists aren't appealing to explicitly atheist experiences.

Doesn't God have to come to us through subjective experiences since there is no other way for us to exist?

Hays misses the point and pretends like there are no distinctions to be made along a spectrum of more subjective than not. 

Doesn't raw experience not interpret itself?

The brain has many filters to process the experiences and yet not all conscious methodologies are created equal.

Doesn't the Bible have an explanation for religious confusion?

Having an explanation isn't the same thing as having the best explanation.

Doesn't Ben assume that divine communication was meant to foster unanimity of belief?

No, I argue that respecting free will can't be more morally important than respecting the need for solid information to make those choices.

Superstition and Barbarism:  Is there no such thing as a superstitious person?

Hays gets offended when Loftus calls the people in Biblical times superstitious as though it doesn't point out genuine methodological distinctions in thought patterns between even modern Christians and the cultures of ancient Bible times.

What would Hays call barbaric anyway?

Just being defensive and offended doesn't make the issue go away since again, there are genuine behavioral distinctions between the social norms of the ancients and even modern Christians. 

Does Loftus make no effort to apply his tests consistently to the category of superstition and barbarism?

Real differences remain between Biblically endorsed superstition and barbarism and modern Christian standards. 

Can't the Bible merely record superstition that it doesn't necessarily embrace?

Sure, but what about the apparent superstition and barbarism that it does embrace?

Does a Christian have to take responsibility for Scripture since they didn't write it?

Christians have to take responsibility for their acceptance of Scripture.

Hasn't Hays, in his blog, already responded head on to charges of superstition and barbarism in the Bible?

Hays may well have done so on his blog in the past or even on Avalos chapter later in TCD, but that only reinforces that Loftus' challenge is a genuine issue.

Can moral relativists make charges of barbarism?

They can make internal criticisms to show the inconsistency and they can also make claims based on their frame of reference that Christians may happen to share.

Doesn't Hays address Carrier's moral realism later in TID?

I will take up the conversation later in my review series then.

Are atheistic moral realists inconsistent and haven't even plenty of secular writers convincingly refuted that position?

Hays needs to show that there is an inconsistency and that the arguments from those other atheists actually work.

Hasn't Hays already dealt with the issue of the internal critique of a moral relativist?

I will take up the conversation later in my review series then.

Holy Spirits: Do Mormons have a genuine self-authenticating inner spiritual witness to their faith?

Hays tries to defend Plantinga's idea of properly basic religious beliefs, but basically avoids the main issue with technicalities which Christians ignore in practice.

Mormons don't enjoy prima facie justification for their faith, right?

Hays never explains why he thinks this is the case.

 

Aren't there lots of unseen things we give credit to?

We give human minds, the past, possible worlds, numbers, and morals more credit because they are much more universally defensible in one way or another than a particular kind of god.

 

Should we automatically discount the appeal to tacit knowledge or self-authenticating mental states?

No, I pointed out when we need to raise the standards accordingly since mutually exclusive propositions are getting in via similar means.

 

Is it okay to claim a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit as long as it's true?

Hays isn't very helpful since he doesn't bother showing us how anyone would know their self-validating religious feelings beat other people's contrary self-validating feelings in a world where none of them have to correspond to any supernatural reality.

Does Loftus fail to draw an elementary distinction between true and false claims about one’s experience?

It should have been obvious from context that Loftus is generally on the same page as me.

Do most religionists even claim to have a distinctive religious experience?

Probably not, but the vagueness hardly helps the case for the supposed reality behind the experience.

Aren't professional religious philosophers much more responsible with their claims about religious experiences?

They certainly can be, but the particular philosopher from the Blackwell Companion that Hays referenced does not make as strong of claims as he does.

Doesn't much of Islam not appeal to religious experiences at all?

This is irrelevant since there is a multitude of religious people who do and this is the brand of justification that we are talking about.

Do all religious people need their subjective religious justifications to remain untested?

Hays overtly argues Christians shouldn't have to challenge their basic justifications.

Isn't it responding to TCD on its own terms to show that a subjective religious experience can be a perfectly valid reason to believe something?

No, because Christians won't believe every similar justification and they need to apply their standards consistently.

What does it mean to “take responsibility” for something that’s not common ground?

It's called debate, Steve.

 

Scoring the Outsider Test:  Does Hays object to the OTF because he knows his faith can't pass it?

Hays claims that the OTF is lopsided and that it presupposes Christians don't already know Christianity is true.

Did Loftus smuggle atheism into the OTF?

Only because Hays can't part with the idea of Jesus in even hypothetical terms.

Should Christians be critical of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit?

Hays confirms that he is uncritical with the inner witness of the Holy Spirit since he calls it a given.

Is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit just a matter of interpretation?

Of course the debate is about what the experience means, not whether there has been an experience or not.

Isn't there no such thing as a self-authenticating delusion?

Skeptics are pointing out that self-authenticating experiences of God aren't so self-authenticating after all or that whatever is supposed to be self-authenticating about it doesn't likely have anything to do with correspondence to a real God.

Isn't pain a self-authenticating experience?

Yes, one that is all in your head, just like God. 

Would we not apply Loftus' standards in any other field of inquiry?

Just how does Hays think science gets done anyway?  By asserting your conclusion and not having to prove anything?

Does Loftus prejudge believing in the Christian faith as "gullible?"

No, it's explained why in the premises of the OTF.

Is it even feasible to be skeptical about everything?

Therefore let's not be skeptical about Christianity, okay?

Does Loftus need to justify all of his beliefs via the OTB before he applies the OTF to Christianity?

Only if we pretend like there's no possible common ground to work with.

Doesn't Loftus need to justify epistemic duties with an OTB?

Hays believes that atheism undermines a genuine interest in truth.

If life just ends, doesn't that affect one's capacity to enjoy it in the meantime?

It might for some people, but not for others.

Are Christians proverbial cry-babies if they can't accept a mortal life without an afterlife clause?

It is understandable to be disappointed from a particular frame of reference you are used to, but unacceptable to fail to recognize that other people can flourish under purely naturalistic assumptions. 

 

What if you know that after your amazing vacation you will be kidnapped and tortured?

With this analogy Hays bizarrely confuses what happens in an atheist's worldview with what happens in his Biblical Christian worldview.

Does the Bible tell us what the percentages of heaven and hell are?

Hays says no, but the Bible says few will be saved.

Even so, wouldn't the threat of hell on yourself be enough motivation to ignore the rest of the damned?

If we are just picking appealing worldviews, one would not choose this divine extortion and predominantly unhappy never-ending. 

How can you avoid hell by becoming an atheist?

Hays fails to understand the "choose your favorite scenario" aspect of the conversation and presumes Christianity is still true.

But as an atheist isn't there no obligation to deny that God exists?

A hypothetical grounding isn't a grounding without proof of existence and Hays acts like there some obligation to scorn the truth no matter how indispensable a lifelong utility truth is.

Doesn't Robert Adams provide concrete examples of grounding epistemic duties in his two monographs on the subject?

It appears he grounds morality in the concept of appraised excellence, but he doesn't seem to prove God exists or tell us why the concept of excellence cannot be appreciated in its own right on naturalistic terms.

 

Do atheists have principled motivation to tend to epistemic duties?

Hays appears to want to say any motivation that is not absolute is unprincipled, but he does not bother defending that unjustified assumption.

 

Isn't a meaningless life a recipe for gratuitous suffering?

Hays invents necessary suffering for all the nonbelievers he's never met.

Don't atheists just distract themselves from this misery and live a lie?

Yes, Steve, it's a conspiracy of wanton happiness.

Aren't the rules of an atheist's life artificial?

If Christianity is false, then surely living a fake Christian life would deserve the title "artificial." 

Is Ben's contribution to this cultural conversation foolish?

Maybe, but it can't be more foolish than Hays' responses.

Does Loftus need to show us in detail how each and every person on earth came to their religious conclusions?

No, probabilities will do, and it doesn't matter since if Loftus is mistaken, presenting the reasons that these religious people have for their beliefs by definition passes the OTF.

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?

They can be I'm sure, but attacking them doesn't help Hays here or prove that there aren't Christians who are pathetically trying to hold on intellectually to wish fulfillment.

More politics:  Does it make sense to trivialize intellectual difficulties of Christianity when presented by an atheist even if apologetics is dedicated to helping Christians with many of those same difficulties?

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 God have to convince people into belief objectively? 

If 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. 

Outro:

That does it for Part 1 of TCD.

Ben

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.