In response to my claim that John Loftus makes incoherent remakes in explaining his outsider test, like:
* It is impossible that any religion with a non-nebulous god pass the outsider test
and,
** It is possible that a religion with a non-nebulous god pass the outsider test.
War On Error left this defense of Loftus in the combox:
It's a priori vs a posteriori. Loftus is saying, on the one hand, there is nothing a priori that prevents Christianity from passing the OTF. He's trying to show that it is a fair test and then challenging up and coming Christian thinkers to actually apply it. However, when Christians come to him and tell him they've applied it and it has passed, he compares his a posteriori conclusions to theirs. And of course, in a world full of disputes about everything at all levels, we expect disagreement there.
That's really rather ridiculous. Apart from the fact that it is lame to claim that because you didn't pass a test no one else can (I suppose megalomaniacs think that way; or perhaps third-graders who fail a math test), this "defense" supports the Mormon burning of the bosom test for faith, MBBTF.
This has been pointed out by J.P. Holding. If WAR ON ERROR meets up with a Mormon, the Mormon will tell WOE (Ben) that he needs to pray and see if it isn't revealed to him the Mormonism is true. If Ben takes the test and says it doesn't work, the Mormon simply "compares his a posteriori experience" to Ben's. The Mormon will say that Ben didn't "really" take the test, just like Loftus says to whoever claims to have passed the OTF, like Victor Reppert. Of course, the Mormon will say that it is a priori possible that the test fail, so it is a fair test.
Similarly, Word of Faith pastors will often argue that if you have enough faith then certain blessings will come. They ask you to test God's goodness. Since it is a test, then it is a priori possible to pass it; however, in experience, the pastors compare all reports to their own a posteriori experience (say, the notice their mansion, the Benz in the driveway, the Rolex on their wrist, etc) and claim that the parishioners didn't "really" have enough faith.
War on Error bet on a losing horse. If he stayed true to his moniker, he'd be pointing out the flaws rather than trying to salvage planks from a sinking and worthless vessel.
Paul,
ReplyDelete"Absolutely nothing if you claim to be at WAR WITH ERROR while really you're just a yes man for bad atheological arguments."
I see you are still a little obsessed with my screen name. You know, just because we disagree about many things doesn't mean you are the one who is correct in all those cases. And you might try being less petty every step of the way. Your call, I guess. But I do think less of you because of it. I don't jump on the opportunity to remind you in virtually every single response to you (here, here, here, here, and here) that you are a blind sheep with no critical thinking skills who will cherish and defend any trite way to disagree with atheists. What would you think of me if I did? It would be really childish of me, wouldn't it?
And I don't see how you can hope to paint me as a "yes man" since my critical review of "The Christian Delusion" has made me an enemy of the editor of the book, John Loftus. He literally hates the fact I'm pointing out all the weakness of it and even refuses to engage in the details of my points. What exactly does an atheist have to do to not be a yes man around here? Be a Christian and always agree with Paul Manata? ;) I'm not detecting a goal post here. What I am detecting is that disconfirming evidence is being ignored to fit your desired narrative since I've already pointed you in the direction of my review before. It seems to me that, just like Steve Hays, you are just judging me for being an atheist and doing everything you can out of insecurity to fit whatever I say into your box. You could chill out.
...
...
ReplyDelete"because you didn't pass a test no one else can"
That's not even Loftus' claim even if he is wrong. He's claiming they've misapplied the test, which is logically possible, since if you give 100 people the same set of instructions they aren't necessarily going to follow them properly. The very next part of my comment that you neglected to quote was this: "I expect Christians to dispute Loftus' a posteriori conclusions based on application of the OTF to Christianity, but I don't think they need to fault him for merely having conclusions of his own. Like I've been saying, both parties at this point just need to "show their work" and get into actual arguments beyond the OTF. There is nothing incoherent about saying, "You didn't do it right," if you immediately follow that up with showing it. Unfortunately in chapter 4, Loftus just declares it a few times, but presumably the rest of the Christian Delusion should actually move the ball along. I'm sure you'll have plenty to disagree with in those chapters."
You ignored that before and you've ignored it here. Will you be ignoring it again? This is some of that "disconfirming evidence" stuff I was just talking about.
"Of course, the Mormon will say that it is a priori possible that the test fail, so it is a fair test."
It is terribly ironic that your point assumes the validity of the OTF in order to use this example to disprove the validity of the OTF. Why isn't the Mormon test fair? Well because any religion can tell you to do that, and many people come back and tell us that it worked for them. Hence, it's not a very convincing argument since we have no way to sort the merits of the claims from each other. Ta da! Outsider test!
I've already berated Loftus for opening himself up to charges of a "no-true-rationalist" fallacy unnecessarily (obviously the whole rest of the book is filled with actual arguments, so why wouldn't he just point to those?). I don't see any merit in Christians lingering here any more than Loftus did. Feel free to continue demonstrating that both Christians and non-Christians can be equally unreasonable. I'm just trying to move the conversation forward. I guess you feel the need to save your criticism. Good luck.
Ultimately, it seems to me that you are arguing for the legitimacy of assuming your conclusions in debates, to be inconsistent with your standards, and to construct a belief system that is not even meant to be convincing to others. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't be against the OTF in principle. You'd accept the basic idea as many Christians do without quibbling too much, and show how you think Christianity passes it. I attempted to gently nudge you in that direction before, but I don't see why you won't go there. I guess everyone is just too stubborn.
Ben
WOE,
ReplyDeleteI point it out because I look at your moniker like I loook at the term "free thinker." You've convinced yourself that you war against error, I'm not convinced. That's my judgment, nothing to rant about.
>>That's not even Loftus' claim even if he is wrong. He's claiming they've misapplied the test, which is logically possible, since if you give 100 people the same set of instructions they aren't necessarily going to follow them properly.<<
i. What did Loftus say about "logical possibility?" IT MEANS DIDDLY, SHOW HIM THE PROBABILITY.
ii. Your defense is irrelevant since you can take out what you don't like in my test and replace it with, "you've missaplied it."
iii. Loftus clearly said that every Christian will missaply it.
Now, I left out your comment because I find it irrelevant. I don't think Loftus took any "outsider" test. In fact, he cheated on his wife and then found a harsh response from Christians and then, all of a sudden, started finding "problems" with Christianity.
When he first came out of the closet he went on Gene Cooks show. I called him up and left him stuttering and stammering. If you listen you can hear it: "Okay, okay, you've made your point." What did he do? Did he act like an outsider? No, he stayed committed to his new found faith and searched for answers to my arguments.
Lastly, Loftus made claims about all Christians not doing it right, so he obviously isn't "following it up with reasons."
CONT.
ReplyDelete>>It is terribly ironic that your point assumes the validity of the OTF in order to use this example to disprove the validity of the OTF. Why isn't the Mormon test fair? Well because any religion can tell you to do that, and many people come back and tell us that it worked for them. Hence, it's not a very convincing argument since we have no way to sort the merits of the claims from each other. Ta da! Outsider test!<<
I don't assume the validity of either. I also don't respond to the Mormon test like you do. So nothing is "terribly ironic." At any rate, they tell you to do it, so why not do it? If you search for truth, and they claim to have an empirically verifiable way to find truth, why not take the test? Who cares if some groups claim to have similar tests, take them all, truth-seeker.
Furthermore, you are kidding yourself if you think Loftus will EVER allow anyone to pass his test. EVERYONE who takes it will either fail it, or have "misapplied it." That doesn't strike you as "terribly ironic?"
>>"Otherwise, you probably wouldn't be against the OTF in principle."<<
That must be because you are assuming your conclusions and don't even want to be persuasve to anyone. That's what you said about me.
First, I think the *argument* for taking the test is *fallacious*, why are you telling me that I should accept the conclusion of arguments I take to be fallacious?
Second, I disagree with the premises he uses *at a factual level*. Why would you want me to accept the conclusion of an argument I find unsound?
Third, I find the argument to be self-refuting and Loftus's ad hoc responses disingenuous.
If I believe those things, why should I be for the test "in principle?"
Lastly, why would I, as a Christian, who believes that his religion is *true* and that * *know* that it is, take the outsider test? That's just dumb advice all around.
Now, maybe there's a persuasive argument out there that tells me to deny my savior and put him to the test and deny what I believe is *true* and what I take myself to *know*, but surely neither you nor Loftus have presented any such reason. Now, maybe you can offer DEFEATERS to my beliefs, that's fair. Or maybe you can play fair and do what Loftus says we must do to him, that is, show that my beliefs are PROBABLY wrong. But if you do either of those, then you don't NEED the outsider test. It's worthless. It's superfluous.
Paul,
ReplyDelete"I point it out because I look at your moniker like I loook at the term "free thinker." You've convinced yourself that you war against error, I'm not convinced. That's my judgment, nothing to rant about."
Well, feel free to call me "Ben." To me (if you care), my moniker is a constant reminder to me to live up to my own standards and to be on my best behavior. Everyone is going to see it, and so I had best be on top of things. It's not "I'm the war on error and you aren't." It's not "War on only your errors." It's not even "War on only Christian errors." And it certainly isn't a declaration that you are already wrong before we get into a debate about something. So it shouldn't already have the pejorative spin that "free thinker" culturally has (since that is associated in opposition to the cliche' of close-minded, dogmatic religious thinking). I don't see how you can be against warring on errors since one would think we could have that in common in principle. It's an ideal. It is also a friendly warning to others that if we get into a debate about something, they'd better be prepared, because I probably am. And, it also sounds cool. I post my errors, often point out fellow atheist errors, and of course lots of Christian errors. But if you are just miffed that I think I'm correct about my own conclusions on whatever topic, please point out someone who does not believe they are correct about their own conclusions. Why else would they be their conclusions?
Anyway (I won't bring that kind of stuff up if you don't), to the issues:
"What did Loftus say about "logical possibility?""
Well, you misunderstand the nature of what I'm getting at. I'm just saying he's not necessarily making any kind of logical error in asserting that he thinks Christians who claim they've taken the test actually haven't done so properly. It is rather a dick move, but it is not necessarily illogical.
Your defense is irrelevant since you can take out what you don't like in my test and replace it with, "you've missaplied it."
True, it can be plastic. But that's exactly why I keep telling everyone to "show their work" rather than just asserting their Christian or atheist conclusions one way or the other.
I don't think Loftus took any "outsider" test. In fact, he cheated on his wife and then found a harsh response from Christians and then, all of a sudden, started finding "problems" with Christianity.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that's pretty much what every anti-Loftus Christian wants to believe. I've never seen anyone prove it, but I do see them habitually misrepresent what he's said about himself.
When he first came out of the closet he went on Gene Cooks show. I called him up and left him stuttering and stammering.
I actually went and listened to the three youtube videos of your conversation with him. You do realize, that's just how he is, right? I'm sure he talks that way in any conversation about any topic and even when I talked to him after the D'Souza debate in a friendly way, he's still like that. You also spent a great deal of time talking over each other, and when you weren't talking over each other, you were rattling off so many issues, that there was no clear victor. It just wasn't what I would call communication either way.
...
...
ReplyDeleteLastly, Loftus made claims about all Christians not doing it right, so he obviously isn't "following it up with reasons."
The rest of the book follows up with reasons as I keep saying over and over again. Call me Captain Obvious (or even Captain Repetitively Obvious) It's not like chapter 4 is the entire book. And to demonstrate the intended connection, as Richard Carrier claimed, "[Loftus' OTF is..] the lynch pin of the whole book, the fulcrum on which every other chapter does Christianity in." So, you are mistaken.
I also don't respond to the Mormon test like you do.
Oh? How would you respond? Care to compare methods?
At any rate, they tell you to do it, so why not do it?
I believe they are genuinely having the experiences they say they are having and I actually have taken their catechism classes to learn more about them. But even if I had the experiences myself (since confidence is a subjective mental state), they provide no tools for distinguishing that confidence from the conflicting confidence of other religious experiences. And there's no reason to assume any of them have to be valid.
Who cares if some groups claim to have similar tests, take them all, truth-seeker.
I don't actually have a problem with that.
Furthermore, you are kidding yourself if you think Loftus will EVER allow anyone to pass his test.
You may be right about Loftus. Perhaps some clever apologist will come along and demonstrate his errors and he still won't concede. I don't see how it matters, since the book or the OTF itself isn't about Loftus and stands or falls apart from him.
EVERYONE who takes it will either fail it, or have "misapplied it." That doesn't strike you as "terribly ironic?"
Well, the best way to show his hypocrisy (if that's what it is), is as I've been saying to show how the OTF doesn't undermine Christianity in the way that Loftus thinks it does or show what is wrong with the OTF.
...
...
ReplyDelete"That must be because you are assuming your conclusions and don't even want to be persuasve to anyone. That's what you said about me."
Whoa there...there's no need to get defensive. I *did* say "probably" as though perhaps there might be some other valid reason to object to the OTF. As it is, all the OTF means is (as I originally said), "It just seems like common sense to me regardless of what topic people are debating. If we are going to take our inherited beliefs seriously, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of others and make absolutely sure we have arguments and evidence that are actually persuasive to outsiders. I don't think that should be a very controversial view. I would think we would all at least agree everyone should be attempting to do that even if we fault the execution." And no, I don't expect you to use the OTF if you think it is fallacious. But you haven't shown how it is fallacious or self refuting and the one statement you've quoted is only the conclusion from my perspective of everything else I've argued. It is not just some random assertion that you should take offense to as though I don't know you disagree with me.
"Lastly, why would I, as a Christian, who believes that his religion is *true* and that * *know* that it is, take the outsider test? That's just dumb advice all around."
It is dumb advice to have a well-rounded epistemology that passes many mutually reinforcing tests? Okay...
"Now, maybe you can offer DEFEATERS to my beliefs, that's fair."
I hear you are a presuppositionalist?
"But if you do either of those, then you don't NEED the outsider test. It's worthless. It's superfluous."
I disagree because it calls some much needed attention to the fact we need to be consistent with our standards for evaluating our own belief system as well as others. Often times Christians will get away with a lot of special pleading that they would never accept from any other belief system. Perhaps that isn't you, but then again, maybe it is. We'll see.
Ben