Rigging the outsider test

It's been many years since I've debated John Loftus, but I recently tangled with him on Facebook:

Loftus

"A historian wants to know what happened. The apologist doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend the Holy Book at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect to do so."

Hays

i) An apologist for atheism doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend his naturalism at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect (e.g. eliminative materialism) to do so.

ii) Loftus overlooks the obvious fact that becoming a Christian apologist is sometimes the end-result of pursuing the evidence, and not the starting-point. 

iii) What about historians committed to methodological naturalism? They don't care what happened. They will defend a naturalistic explanation even if it means sacrificing the evidence.

Loftus 

You reject the idea you should look at your own faith as an outsider does."

Hays

Why should an outsider be the standard of comparison? For instance, I don't look at the 9/11 attacks from the same perspective as 9/11 Truthers. Does that mean I'm a fideist about 9/11 unless I adopt the viewpoint of a 9/11 Truther? 

Just to draw an invidious insider/outsider contrast is intellectually vacuous. There's nothing inherently superior about an outsider perspective. It all depends on the specific insider position or the specific outsider position. Some insider positions are right and reasonable, while some outsider positions are wrong and irrational. 

Philosophical Buddhists believe the sensible world is Maya. Illusory or delusional. 

I believe there's an external world. I believe in the general reliability of sensory perception. That's my "insider" perspective. Am I supposed to adopt the outsider perspective of a philosophical Buddhist?

Loftus

"The historical method doesn't allow for miracles into their equations."

Hays

So by John's admission, real historians don't consider all the evidence. They preemptively exclude evidence for supernaturalism. They filter the evidence through a secular sieve to screen out evidence that runs counter to their closed-system outlook.

Loftus

"I think it is always wise to consider the perspective of the outsider if you want to know the truth and/or want to show them wrong if they are wrong."

Hays

Oh, but there's more to your position than that innocuous statement. 

Loftus

"Adopting the outsider perspective is to make us think in terms of the evidence, objective evidence, sufficient objective evidence." 

Hays

See, what you're actually doing is to make "the outsider perspective" the standard of comparison. You equate that with "objective evidence".

Recurring to my example, if I believe in the external world and the general reliability of the senses, I must submit that to a Buddhist benchmark, according to which that's a global illusion or delusion. 

Loftus

"With regard to 9/11 the evidence is decisive."

Hays

It's clearly not decisive from the outsider perspective of 9/11 Truthers. So you instantly abandon your cherished principle. 

Loftus

"When it comes to an external world, the basis for an outsider perspective is that there is an external world, without which there can be no such perspective."

Hays

To the contrary, the outsider perspective would be the enlightened viewpoint that appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no external world. Buddhism posits a point of contrast between appearance and reality. So you wield your principle in a provincial and arbitrary manner. 

Loftus

"So using the outsider perspective gets us an external world."

Hays

Not if we begin with philosophical Buddhism as our frame of reference. 

Loftus

"If we are wrong and there is an illusory world anyway then it wouldn't make any difference to how we think or live our lives."

Hays

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

Loftus

"The outsider perspective is the position of agnosticism when it comes to religion."

Hays

But that's prejudicial. Not to mention your selective agnosticism. We do not, cannot, and should not suspend judgment about most things. I think the Chinese takeout joint I frequent is just what it appears to be, rather than a front organization for opium traffickers. Of course, it's abstractly possible that the Chinese takeout joint is not what it seems to be, and is in fact a front organization for opium traffickers, but does that mean I should withhold judgment? 

Loftus

"Don't let anything else but the evidence push you off it, if it can. This outsider perspective helps overcome the mother of all cognitive biases, confirmation bias. For then you're no longer seeking to confirm what you believe, but rather investigating whether it is true."

Hays

i) Your one-sided application of confirmation bias to Christianity rather than atheism is, in itself, Exhibit A of confirmation bias.

ii) If, moreover, atheism is true, what's so bad about confirmation bias?

Loftus

"A historian must always go by what is more probable taking into consideration all of the available evidence. Period. It's always more probable that historians cannot know what happened due to missing evidence, the silence of the people involved, people who had an agenda driven reason for promoting it, or liars, than than a miracle took place. You have to be unreasonable to believe!"

Hays

That's warmed over Hume, which begs the question by stipulating that a naturalistic explanation is always more likely than a supernatural explanation. Loftus bottomed out before he even got started.

Loftus

"Now tell us why believers who are born into different and even mutually exclusive religions, who are certain or almost certain their religion is the one and only true one, who have killed or now kill others who believe differently, should NOT look at their religion as an outsider if they honestly want to know the truth."

Hays

i) What is the outsider test? On the one hand, it could simply be the opposing position on anything and everything. The other side of the argument.

If that's what is meant, then it's artificially abstract, by treating all truth-claims equally. Whatever I'm born into believing, I should subject that to an outsider test. If I've been conditioned to believe pharmaceuticals can cure certain illnesses, is it incumbent on me to take an outsider test by suspending judgment on the medicinal value of pharmaceuticals? 

I don't treat all truth-claims equally because, as a matter of fact, they're unequal. It would be irrational to come to all truth-claims as a blank slate, for that's not where we in fact begin and it's not where we should begin. Many truth-claims are well-attested. Likewise, many claims have been debunked. 

I don't need to act as though it's all up in the air. That would be make-believe. Pretending that I don't know what I'm justified in believing.

ii) Likewise, as I said before, this isn't just a question of assuming the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, to consider where that leads. Christian philosophers and good apologists do that all the time. 

Rather, you're treating an outsider perspective as if that should be the benchmark simply be virtue of being an outsider perspective in relation to an insider perspective. But again, that's arbitrary. There's nothing that makes an outsider perspective as such more likely to be true. No reason I should automatically submit to an outsider perspective as the yardstick by which I measure my beliefs. That treats criteria as entirely random and symmetrical. 

iii) In reality, you always use the so-called outsider test one-sidedly, to judge Christian theism. For instance, you don't say secular historians should take the outsider test by submitting to the viewpoint of Bible writers. Yet in relation to a secular historian, the viewpoint of Bible writers represents an outsider perspective. But the moment we turn tables on your principle, you ditch it.

Loftus

"miracle claims litter the historical highway, and get in the way of figuring out what actually happened."

Hays

Suppose a miracle is what actually happened? Then methodological atheism gets in the way of figuring out what actually happened. 

Loftus

"In other words the tools of the historian are not applicable to assessing miracle claims."

Hays

That commits you to Gould's view concerning the relationship between and religion: nonoverlapping magisteria.

Loftus

"I just wish apologists would admit this straightforward and obvious truth."

Hays

You call it "obvious" because you can't defend it. 

Loftus

"That's because the evidence for any of these claims could be faked or lost, and so on."

Hays

That's called a hasty generalization. How many reported miracles have you studied? 

Loftus

"There are cases where it's required if people want to be honest with the facts being disputed, most notably religious faiths."

Hays

Which reveals your incorrigible bias. You don't even believe in your own principle. You exempt methodological atheism from the outsider test. Why should anyone else take the outsider test seriously when you can't bring yourself to apply it consistently?

Loftus

"Surely this is a case where the claims are NOT well-attested or agreed upon…"

Hays

Only according to the insider perspective of an atheist. See how atheism flunks the outsider test.  

Loftus

"and where confirmation bias runs wild with believers (just talk to them and see how sure they are)."

Hays

Notice how Loftus is utterly oblivious to his own confirmation bias. 

Loftus

"Nowhere do I suggest an outsider's perspective is the true one"

Hays

So why the heck should a mistaken perspective be the standard of comparison? 

Loftus

"It's the only test that makes any sense if you want to be honest in investigating your religious faith."

Hays

So even though, by your own admission, you nowhere suggest that an outsider's perspective is the true one, you insist that I should test my religious faith against an erroneous benchmark?

As a necessary preliminary step, don't you first need to establish that an outsider's perspective is true before you use that as a criterion? If a false criterion disproves my religious faith, what does that actually disprove? Falsified by a false criterion. That's impressive.

Loftus

"I do in fact say atheists should take the test by assuming the default position of agnosticism"

Hays

You espouse methodological naturalism. But that's not default agnosticism. Rather, that's indefeasible agnosticism.

Moreover, why should agnosticism be the default position? Why should we grant that a priori stipulation? That treats religious claims in a vacuum, as of there's no evidence for religious claim when we come to the table. 

Loftus

"That default position cannot be your Calvinist interpretation of the Biblical texts, for if that were allowed anyone could assert their own religious view is the default position, thus gutting this test and along with it any real chance of getting to the truth."

Hays

I never suggested Calvinism was the default position. What makes you think there is a default position? You're operating at too high a level of generality. It comes down to evidence. Specific evidence. There is no fact-free default position. 

Loftus

"The default position must be justified independently of the test itself and of the results"

Hays

If the default position can be justified independently of the outsider test, then the default position needn't pass the outsider test. So you just mooted the need for your own test.

Loftus

"In simple terms the default position is one in which a person is not a believer in the religion under investigation."

Hays

That's the default position for an unbeliever. But why should an unbeliever's default position be a believer's default position? Why privilege the unbeliever's position unless there's reason to think it's true–in which case it's no longer a merely default position? 

For instance, should ufology be the default position when judging Christianity? That's an outsider position in relation to Christianity. But unless you think ufology is true, why should that be the "tool" for assessing Christianity?

Loftus

"A historian wants to know what happened. The apologist doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend the Holy Book at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect to do so."

Hays

i) An apologist for atheism doesn't care what happened. He only wants to defend his naturalism at all costs, even if it means he must sacrifice his intellect (e.g. eliminative materialism) to do so.

ii) Loftus overlooks the obvious fact that becoming a Christian apologist is sometimes the end-result of pursuing the evidence, and not the starting-point. 

iii) What about historians committed to methodological naturalism? They don't care what happened. They will defend a naturalistic explanation even if it means sacrificing the evidence.

Loftus

"AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE HISTORIANS FAULT. IT'S WHAT SO MANY FALSE CLAIMS IN HISTORY TO MIRACLES DEMAND." 

Hays

i) False claims aren't distinctive to supernatural claims. There's no dearth of false naturalistic claims. But by your logic, that means a historian must preemptively filter out all testimonial claims. That would put historians out of business.

Historians have to sift and sort testimonial evidence. That goes with the territory. There are criteria for assessing testimonial evidence. That applies to natural and supernatural claims alike. 

ii) Your standard is brainless. You treat all reported miracles alike, but the evidence varies. The way a historian should proceed is to consider the evidence on a case-by-case basis. That's what he must to when assessing reported events in general.

Loftus

"NOPE. IT COMMITS YOU TO GOULD'S VIEW."

Hays

You're not following your own argument. If, by your own admission, "the tools of the historical are inapplicable to assessing miracle claims," then a historian can't rule them in or out. So that's a non-conflict thesis. NOMA. 

Loftus

"OR DO YOU HAVE PROOF NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DESTROYED OR LOST ON BEHALF OF A MIRACLE YOU BELIEVE?"

Hays

You seem to think we're confined to ancient records. You ignore modern miracles as well as firsthand experience of miracles. You're stuck in a Humean rut.

Loftus

"PLENTY, OR DOES IT ESCAPE YOU I STUDIED THESE THINGS AS MUCH AS MARK MITTELBERG DID?"

Hays

We need to clarify the burden of proof. Naturalism (i.e. physicalism+causal closure) rules out miracles in toto. This means that in principle it only takes a single bona fide miracle to blow naturalism out of the water. There's no parity between a Christian's burden of proof and an atheist's burden of proof in that regard. An atheist must discredit every single reported miracle, whereas a Christian only has to come up with a handful of well-documented counterexamples.

And there's lots of material on hand. Take Craig Keener's two-volume collection. Moreover, he continues to update that. Or take case-studies in Robert Larmer's two recent books (The Legitimacy of Miracle; Dialogues on Miracle). 

Loftus

"AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE HISTORIANS OR SCIENTISTS FAULT THAT APPROACHING HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ISSUES WITH A METHOD THAT PRESUMES A NATURAL ANSWER PRODUCES THE GOODS…"

Hays

Historians are not in the job of producing the goods, but reporting on the past.

Loftus

"BESIDES, EVEN USING SUCH AN APPROACH IT'S STILL POSSIBLE THAT CLINICAL STUDIES ON PRAYER COULD FIND EVIDENCE FOR A GOD WHO ANSWERS PRAYER, DESPITE THE APPROACH. BUT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN."

Hays

We don't need clinical prayer studies. All we need to falsify naturalism are a few well-attested counterexamples. 

Loftus

"I THINK YOU NEED TO BE HONEST AS TO WHY YOU'RE LOSING MILLIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE…"

Hays

Because they're ignorant.

Loftus

"IT'S A MIDDLE POSITION BETWEEN BELIEF AND NON-BELIEF."

Hays

Agnosticism is*non-belief.

Loftus

"IT'S THE DEFAULT POSITION."

Hays

Your standard is blatantly irrational. Unless there's reason to believe a particular outsider perspective is true, it would be illogical to measure my beliefs by an inaccurate ruler. 

Loftus

"IT'S A STARTING POINT FROM WHICH TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE DISPASSIONATELY AS POSSIBLE BY ELIMINATING CONFIRMATION BIAS AS WELL AS CAN BE EXPECTED."

Hays

i) An outsider perspective doesn't eliminate confirmation bias, but simply replaces insider confirmation bias with outsider confirmation bias. 

ii) BTW, confirmation bias can still be true.

Loftus

"AGAIN, IT'S NOT MY FAULT METHOLOGICAL NATUALISM SOLVES PROBLEMS AND GOD EXPLANATIONS DON'T."

Hays

That just begs the question. 

Loftus

"ALL RELIGIONISTS WHO ARE THREATENED WITH AN HONEST TEST FOR THEIR FAITH WOULD SAY SUCH THINGS."

Hays

Which fallaciously equates an outsider perspective with an honest test. A witchdoctor represents the outsider perspective in relation to a pharmacist. Is that an honest test for the medicinal value of modern pharmaceuticals?

Loftus

"YOU SUGGESTED BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY AS A DEFAULT POSITION. WHICH ONE IS THAT?"

Hays

No, I never suggested that as the default position. Rather, that's merited by reason and evidence. 

Loftus

"WHILE THERE IS NO FACT-FREE DEFAULT POSITION (I AGREE), WOULDN'T AN HONEST SEEKER OF TRUTH WANT TO ADOPT ONE AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO IT?"

Hays

What's intellectually honest about adopting a default position that's as close as possible to a fact-free position? 

Loftus

"THE OUTSIDER TEST IS IN RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY. THAT PROBLEM CALLS UPON BELIEVERS TO ADOPT THE DEFAULT POSITION."

Hays

i) Religious diversity is not a problem for Christianity, since Christian theology has explanations for religious diversity. That phenomenon is consistent with the truth of Christian theism. Plenty of religious diversity during OT times and NT times.

ii) What's the default position for philosophical diversity? 

Loftus

"ISN'T THAT HOW YOU REASONABLY EVALUATE OTHER RELIGIONS AND SECTS? WHY WOULD ANY SEEKER OF TRUTH ADVOCATE A DOUBLE STANDARD?"

Hays

You're the one who's hung up on default positions. But positions need to be earned. 

Loftus

"LOOK, IT'S CLEAR YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING IF YOUR RELIGIOUS FAITH IS FALSE. THE LENGTHS TO WHICH YOU ARE GOING IS SURPRISING THOUGH."

Hays

The "lengths to which I go" is scrutinizing your standard, which fares poorly under the spotlight.

Loftus

"THE OUTSIDER TEST IS MERELY A TOOL TO GET BELIEVERS TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE, OR THE LACK THEREOF."

Hays

The outsider test is a cipher. 

Loftus

"I SEE NO REASON WHY UFOLOGY AND MANY RELIGIONS ARE OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER. BUT IF THEY HAD TO BE A CHOICE BETWEEN THEM ONE SHOULD APPROACH THEM AS OUTSIDERS, YES, TO SEE WHICH ONE HAD EVIDENCE, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, SUFFCIENT EVIDENCE FOR IT."

Hays

You fail to grasp the nature of your own principle. You are using the outsider test as a criterion. But if ufology is a criterion in relation to insiders who reject alien abductions, then reported alien abductions are immune to challenge since ufology is the outsider test in relation to skeptics. What's the alternative to skepticism about alien abductions? The outsider perspective would be ufology! By how can alien abductions be debunked if ufology is the standard of comparison?

Loftus

"Nope. It's always less likely that a miracle took place. They have examined enough of them to generalize that when it comes to miracles it's always less probable that they took place."

Hays

Hardly any historians even attempt to collect reports of miracles. How many historians interview ostensible witnesses to miracles?

Miracles, if they happen, generally happen to people nobody has ever heard of because most folks aren't famous. It takes a special effort to collect case-studies on miracles. There are scholars like Larmer, Keener, Wiebe et al. who've done that, but it's hardly something historians routinely examine.

Loftus

"Historians with their tools are the only way to know if a miracle took place."

Hays

John, that's absurd. You're not considering the most obvious kinds of counterexamples. A person needn't be a historian to experience a miracle. You act as though this is a matter of sifting documentary evidence about past reports. 

But in principle, individuals can have firsthand experience of miracles. Indeed, that's widely reported in modern times right up to the present. So it's not the exclusive purview of historians by any means. 

Loftus

"Since they cannot say one did, then I accept their judgment. The historian must always judge a miracle to be less probable. I accept that they can't for the reasons they give."

Hays

That's an utterly arbitrary and evasive stance. Historians are often philosophically naive. 

By your own admission, moreover, you think historians should practice methodological atheism. So in that event they wouldn't even attempt to consider if an event is naturally inexplicable. They've already concluded in advance, without ever examining the evidence, that supernatural explanations are verboten. 

Loftus

"If a miracle takes place we need documentation. All we hear are undocumented testimonies."

Hays

Really? Have you read books by Keener, Larmer, Wiebe et al. which provide extensive documentation?

Loftus

"Even so, we must look at who claims responsibility for it then take a look at that person with his beliefs and morals to judge whether god would use him."

Hays

In the Bible, God sometimes sends dreams to pagans.

Loftus

"Where's this documentation you speak of?"

Hays

I already gave you examples. 

Loftus

"In any case, we already know 'miracles' happen everyday based on David Hand's book, 'The Improbability Principle.'"

Hays

That proves too much or too little since atheists need some criteria to distinguish coincidental from noncoincidental events. 

Loftus

"So we'll need something that stands out if there is a god who wants us to believe, like regrowing an amputated limb."

Hays

All we need is evidence that's incompatible with naturalism (i.e. physicalism+causal closure). Many different kinds of examples will suffice in that regard.

Loftus

"See Matthew Ferguson's blog posts on this"

Hays

Been there, done that:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/infinite-monkey-theorem.html

Loftus

"They are to produce the historical goods, telling us what happened in the past."

Hays

Which includes Christian church historians.

Loftus

"I'm not surprised you reject sufficient objective evidence in favor of faith. Clinical Studies provide the best evidence for healing if one took place."

Hays

It doesn't take a large sample to disprove naturalism. It only takes a few well-documented examples. Consider medically verified miracles. 

Loftus

"You object because you tacitly know you cannot convince a reasonable nonbeliever!"

Hays

That's sophistic psychobabble. I gave multiple reasons for why the outsider perspective makes no sense. Because you can't refute my counterarguments, you resort to imputing untoward motives. 

Whether someone is persuadable is not the standard of comparison. Many people are unpersuadable for factors that have nothing to do with reason and evidence. That's a sociological commonplace. 

Loftus

"Confirmation bias only kicks in when someone affirms something, which is magnified by threats of hell and a public declaration of commitment in front of everyone he loves."

Hays

Many churchgoers, even in evangelical churches, rarely hear fire and brimstone sermons. You're resorting to a popular Hollywood stereotype. 

Loftus

"So confirmation bias in minimized with me to reasonable levels."

Hays

To begin with, it's tendentious for you to impute confirmation bias to all Christians. That's a classic hasty generalization.

And the way you one-sidedly impute confirmation bias to Christians while exempting atheists is a classic illustration of somebody who's blinded by and to his own confirmation bias. 

Loftus

"Sure, but with threats of hell during childhood indoctrination where one's whole life and future hope in heaven is staked on it, what are the odds someone like that can dispassionately and honestly evaluate his faith?"

Hays

Which is hardly a representative sample for Christians in general. That wasn't my experience.

And what about childhood indoctrination in atheism? Threats of oblivion? Shaming them? 

Loftus

"You beg the question of your faith at every point here, adding in your double-standards special pleadings and confirmation biases."

Hays

You're substituting buzzwords for argument.

Loftus

"Your god solution is forever receding with the advancement if science."

Hays

That's a classic canard. Christian theology always had a doctrine of general providence. Most events were never attributed to direct divine agency. 

Loftus

"by asking for evidence, sufficient evidence, which is the same way reasonable people evaluate different faiths."

Hays

An outsider perspective isn't evidence. You indulge in a bait-n-switch where you act as though an outsider perspective is equivalent to evidence. That's demonstrably false. 

Loftus

"Some viewpoints like a witch-doctor vs a pharmacist are easily destroyed by the evidence."

Hays

Indeed, but to do so you must abdicate your relativistic outsider perspective and privilege a particular standard. Once again, you don't believe in your own outsider test. You apply that selectively and opportunistically. You only invoke it when that serves your purpose.

Loftus

"Others, mostly fundamental religions must be argued into seeing the evidence is not there because the evidence wasn't what convinced them to believe in the first place."

Hays

Another hasty generalization. 

Loftus

"At this point you are as closed-minded as possible if you reject this fair minded position."

Hays

I've explained why that's not a fair-minded position. You have no rebuttal. When you have no argument, you resort to imputing untoward motives.

Loftus

"leaving the problem of religious diversity untouched."

Hays

That's not a problem for Christianity.

Loftus

"and surely this is a case where a great deal of killing is being done"

Hays

If you mean the present, that would be Islam.

Loftus

"THE THIRTY YEARS WAR."

Hays

That's 500 years ago. You said "killing is being done", as if at present. Well, that's Islam, not Christianity.

BTW, the European wars of religion were about monarchs who wanted religious uniformity to achieve social control. It wasn't essentially religious but political. 

Loftus

"You blithely excuse away the religious motivations by different Christian sects who were willing to kill."

Hays

They were taking orders from the king. And if you want to play that game, what about atrocities by secular regimes?

Loftus

"And you refuse to earn yours by being fair and honest with your faith."

Hays

Honesty is not a value in a godless universe.