Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Does the outsider test pass the outsider test?


When believers criticize the other faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths.
 
Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So dispensing all of the red herrings about morality and a non-material universe, the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent.
 
The OTF asks why believers operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume your own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to your holy book(s) and see what you get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption. For it only takes a moment's thought to realize that if there is a God who wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, who are outsiders, then that religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.


Sigh! So many mistakes, so little time.

i) Loftus affects evenhandedness, but notice the presupposition of the OTF. The OTF takes for granted that Christians are irrational and unscientific about Christianity. Therefore, the OTF is a necessary corrective.

But, of course, that presupposition is far from unbiased. To the contrary, that treats atheism as a given.

So the outsider test fails to pass the outsider test. It pretends to be equitable when, in fact, it is fundamentally inequitable.

ii) Then there’s the selective Cartesian skepticism. It’s not a hallmark of rationality to methodologically doubt everything you believe. Indeed, that’s not even possible. You can’t only find something doubtful if it conflicts with something else you take to be true.

iii) Loftus limits his Cartesian scepticism to Christianity (or religion in general), but once again, that reflects his bias. So the OTF is not evenhanded. The OTF is the polar opposite of what it feigns to be.

Once again, the outsider test fails to pass the outsider test. It pretends to be equitable when, in fact, it is fundamentally inequitable.

iv) What if a Christian espouses some version of scientific antirealism, viz. Bas van Fraassen?

v) Loftus is isolating science and reason as if these are value-free criteria which transcend any particular worldview. But science and reason don’t have the same status in atheism that they have in Christianity.

If naturalistic evolution is true, then human reason is the byproduct of a trial-and-error process. And science would just be an idea in our brains.

If Christianity is true, then our minds were designed by an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God. The same God designed the world, so the world is, to some degree, rationally accessible. Likewise, divine providence lays a foundation for induction.

vi) Morality is not a red herring. If atheism can’t justify objective moral norms, then we have no duty to be consistent. Absent epistemic duties, there is nothing wrong with double standards.

I’m not conceding that Christians are guilty of what Loftus alleges. Just pointing out that he can’t treat morality as a red herring if the OTF assumes a moral obligation to avoid double standards. 

vii) I’m a critic of Roman Catholicism. Yet I don’t demand that Catholics suspend their belief in Roman Catholicism. Rather, I often measure Catholicism by its own yardstick. And when I measure Catholicism by my own yardstick, I argue for my yardstick. Therefore, I don’t shift the burden of proof onto Catholicism.

So Loftus’ blanket characterizing of how Christians allegedly conduct themselves is a straw man.

vii) As a Calvinist, I don’t think it’s God’s intention to save everyone who’s born into a different religious culture. For that matter, I don’t think it’s God’s intention to save everyone who’s born into a Christian religious culture. Therefore, the OTF is predicated on a premise that doesn’t apply to a theological tradition like my own. 

26 comments:

  1. "Does the outsider test pass the outsider test?"

    Such a question is an instance of an internal critique.

    Since the answer to the question is "NO" then the OTF is not a good test and therefore invalid as a means or reason to reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right Steve.

    Since it is clearly impossible to simply not know what is true about gods and the metaphysics of various religions, we should all just assume that the religion or belief system we were born into is correct, invent an imaginary basis for believing in mundane things and pretend that invention is a solid foundation, and then hold everyone who disagrees with us to a higher standard of disproof, because whichever deity is in charge of the correct religion probably doesn't even care if we even know what's going on before we plunge into hell for all eternity. Makes perfect sense.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben,

    Thanks for illustrating the impotence of unbelievers like yourself to interact with the actual argument. Your tacit concession is much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, why don't you just tell your readers that the reason you reject the OTF is because you don't think anyone actually is an outsider to your basic theistic beliefs. We all secretly agree with you. It's a conspiracy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ben,

    Why don't you just present a real argument?

    ReplyDelete
  6. C'mon, Steve. You know exactly how easy it is to refute a conspiracy theory. You present lots of great arguments and they just get blissfully ignored in favor of further conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're the one, not me, who trotted out the specter of a conspiracy theory. Either say something on-point or go away.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Outsider Test for Faith is a tool, not a belief system. It's used to test religions, not tests. Saying that the OTF doesn't pass the OTF is like being surprised when rubbing two pH strips against each other produces no results. The test isn't to test the test, it's to test things the test was designed to test: in this case, faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, I did. Sarcasm is apparently too difficult to interpret. You ignore agnosticism as though we have to know everything about how the universe works, why it is the way it is, and what not. Your only response to agnostics is (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/10/surrender-to-error.html), "I don’t require the agnostic to step outside of the truth. Rather, he needs to open his eyes to the truth that’s all around him. An agnostic is already in the truth–he simply shuts his eyes to the truth." That's the equivalent of saying, "Just see things the way I do!" Honestly, who thinks that kind of thing is convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. THE NERD SAID:

    "The Outsider Test for Faith is a tool, not a belief system."

    Actually, the OTF is a transparent ploy. Ironically, the only folks taken in by the ruse are gullible infidels.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fairness = ploy Note to self. Don't want to be gullible.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ouch, a gullible infidel? That stings, yet it cuts me straight to the heart. All my life I had gone without anyone insulting me. If only they had, I might have been saved years of futility weighing logic and evidence, as if that were the path to a true and deep knowledge of God. No, it is in ridicule I am saved, in dismissal I am made whole! Thank you for daring to live the words of Ephesians 5:1 in a way that no one else ahas before.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You think I should follow God's example (Eph 5:1)? Which example did you have in mind, precisely? You mean, like fire and brimstone raining down on Sodom and Gomorrah?

    ReplyDelete
  14. " It's used to test religions, not tests"

    No, it a specific instance of a general claim. Thus one can apply OT to a wide range of beliefs, not just faith beliefs. The problem here is that when OT's are given to many of Loftus's cherished western beliefs, he refuses to take those OT's, claiming that before he takes any of them we *must* show that his belief is "probably" false. Thus, I say the same thing: show my belief in Christianity is probably false. But here's the rub: if you successfully do that, then there's no need to take an OT. If I believed that Christianity were probably false I wouldn't believe it.

    Atheists who buy into this OTF business are just dupes. Suckers. Easy marks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BEN SAID:

    "You ignore agnosticism..."

    Since agnosticism stands for nothing, there's not much to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Loftus said...

    Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide.

    END OF QUOTE

    William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), pp. 348 states

    Here is a list of some of the presuppositions of science: (1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world; (2) the orderly nature of the external world; (3) the knowability of the external world; (4) the existence of truth; (5) the laws of logic; (6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment; (7) the adequacy of language to describe the world; (8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., "test theories fairly and report test results honestly"); (9) the uniformity of nature and induction; (10) the existence of numbers.

    http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/ten-presuppositions-of-science.html

    These are presuppositions that are required axioms to carry out and perform Western science and therefore most Western atheists hold to them even though they are not themselves testable by science itself. Why don't atheists takes seriously the possibility that if atheism were true, then the universe (i.e. ultimate reality) might be totally random, chaotic, lawless, unpredictable and contingent? That's my first question.

    Secondly, they may retort that to take that position would be unfruitful so that if it were true, then there'd be no point in believing it. Therefore, they may say, it makes sense (logically, rationally, and practically) to assume that ultimate reality is rationally accessible.

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  17. But just because one might want that to be the case, doesn't make it true. Yet atheists often appeal to the above presuppositions, and use them in arguing against religions AS IF they ACTUALLY were true. Not merely as useful operating/working assumptions. What gives them the (epistemic) right to dogmatically wield those presuppositions?

    Moreover, given atheism's cosmic impersonalism and it's meta-narrative why accept (or accept as possible or even likely) that rationality and personality can spring from non-rationality and impersonality? Can emergentism and/or computationalism, (reductive or non-reductive) materialism or physicalism overcome the more likely situation of eliminative materialism, or solve the famous Chinese Room Thought Experiment?

    It seems to me that Christianity does better (abductively) in accounting for the presuppositions of science (mentioned above) than does atheism. Especially when the most basic assumption of individual atheists is the reality of their own personality and consciousness. So that in a sense, for them (individually), personality and consciousness is more fundamental (if not ontologically, then at least epistemologically) than the impersonal and the non-conscious. Why do they as individuals (usually) reject solipsism (cf. #1 above)?

    At least in the theistic position, it makes sense for finite minds to exist because an infinite mind exists in whose "image"/"likeness" the finite minds have been created. Therefore, it seems to me, it's the atheistic position that has the additional and unwarranted assumption (and burden of proof) that rationality and consciousness can spring from the non-rational and the non-conscious.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In which case, theism (of the sort found in the Abrahamic faiths) better satisfies the principle of parsimony (i.e. Occam's Razor) as well as being more elegant than the various atheistic alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  19. All the above was speaking hypothetically and abductively. The thing about Christianity is that it is not a hypothesis cooked up in a philosophy department of some university. It claims to be a divinely revealed religion. Revealed in supernatural Special Revelation, as well as evidenced in the natural world which is considered by Special Revelation another form of divine revelation (i.e. General Revelation) that attests to, if interpreted aright, to the truth of the message of Special Revelation. All of this being revealed to rational creatures made in the rational image of the rational God, in an environment that's adapted to their senses & faculties so that it can be rationally accessed and empirically interacted with. Okay, I don't want to hog the blog anymore. I'm done. Comments?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not a hill worth dying on. And the "historical" gang (Craig, Habermas, Licona) do not assume divine authorship. Bottom line: there are so many good reasons to disbelieve Christianity that we don't need to go around using generic evasions like this. Get down to the nitty gritty and point out textual hokum such as Mt 2:15 vs. Hos 11:1, that disproves divine inspiration (or else proves God was into flaky exegesis that would put and word-faither to shame).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thnuh Thnuh said:

    Not a hill worth dying on. And the "historical" gang (Craig, Habermas, Licona) do not assume divine authorship. Bottom line: there are so many good reasons to disbelieve Christianity that we don't need to go around using generic evasions like this. Get down to the nitty gritty and point out textual hokum such as Mt 2:15 vs. Hos 11:1, that disproves divine inspiration (or else proves God was into flaky exegesis that would put and word-faither to shame).

    1. Keep in mind the remarks Jason and I made to you about the paucity of your own comments.

    2. How, in your view, are Hos 11:1 and Mt 2:15 "textual hokum"? How do they "disprove[] divine inspiration" or "prove[] God was into flaky exegesis that would put and [sic] word-faither to shame"? If you want to "[g]et down to the nitty gritty," then why don't you offer a "nitty gritty" argument? Citing two verses which happen to share the phrase "out of Egypt I called my son" and alleging they're "textual hokum" and so forth without further elucidation is, at best, sheer intellectual laziness.

    3. See pp 7-8 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thnuh Thnuh said...

    Get down to the nitty gritty and point out textual hokum such as Mt 2:15 vs. Hos 11:1, that disproves divine inspiration (or else proves God was into flaky exegesis that would put and word-faither to shame).


    Matthew was using standard Rabbinic interpretive principles and application. See the Jewish exegetical approach called PaRDeS:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis).

    Scholar Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum (Messianic Jewish believer in Jesus) makes this clear in his lectures on the The Life of the Messiah audio
    http://deanbible.org/andromedaCS.php?q=f&f=%2FJewish+Life+of+Christ%2FAudio+Files

    Fruchtenbaum explains the approach in the first two audio lectures (which I HIGHLY recommend).

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'll look into this, but let me just state that on the face of it, it seems that this "rabbinic" interpretation is highly esoteric and subjective. It does not conform to the GHM. Therefore, one can state:
    i) Teachers who do not conform to the GHM but use the text as a starting point to free-associate and invent doctrines (such as Joseph Smith or John Spong) are false teachers, since they undermine any clear meaning of the text and can turn it into anything they mean.

    ii) Matthew does the same thing

    iii) Therefore Matthew is a false teacher and his gospel is not canonical.

    iv) Therefore the Christian religion is false, since it is predicated partly on the canonicity of Matthew's gospel.

    I don't think this is frivolous, like the "orchid is the smallest seed" argument, or the "circumference of the tower was 3 instead of 3.141592654" argument. I think this is a deal breaker. But as I say, I'll give it a listen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'll note:

    1. Thnuh Thnuh has thus far only responded to Fruchtenbaum's argument. He hasn't followed up on his charges. Thnuh Thnuh has thus far been unable or unwilling to further elaborate on and defend his charges that Hos 11 and Mt 2:15 are "textual hokum," "disprove[] divine inspiration," and/or "prove[] God was into flaky exegesis that would put and [sic] word-faither to shame."

    2. Thnuh Thnuh has thus far been unable or unwilling to interact with material I've cited above i.e. the Beale and Carson book. I'll also note the Mt 2:15 material in Commentary of the NT Use of the OT is material from Craig Blomberg, who has likewise written a commentary on Matthew. As well, D.A. Carson has written a commentary on Matthew and talks at length about Mt 2:15. All three books are searchable online. As such, I presume it's possible to search for scholarly comments on Mt 2:15 and its relationship to Hos 11.

    3. Moreover, if Thnuh Thnuh genuinely wanted to make a sincere effort to understand the passages in question (rather than disdaining and dismissing them as "textual hokum" and worse without further argument), he could contact scholars like Blomberg or Beale. In fact, Blomberg is quite active online (e.g. see his recent comments here, check out his weblog). Actually, I'll lend Thnuh Thnuh a helping hand: here is Blomberg's faculty webpage which includes his email address. What's stopping Thnuh Thnuh from contacting Blomberg and asking him for his interpretation of the relationship between Mt 2:15 and Hos 11? If Blomberg responds, Thnuh Thnuh can post it and let us know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thnuh Thnuh said...

    I don't think this is frivolous, like the "orchid is the smallest seed" argument, or the "circumference of the tower was 3 instead of 3.141592654" argument. I think this is a deal breaker. But as I say, I'll give it a listen.

    I'm glad to hear that :-)) I recommend you listen to it speeded up using the various programs can do so. I listen to most audio lectures/sermons speeded up either on my computer or mp3 player. Windows Media Player has a standard feature where you can speed up or slow down audio. I love it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thnuh Thnuh,

    I made a mistake. Dr. Fruchtenbaum starts talking about PaRDeS at the VERY beginning of audio file 3 of his The Jewish Life of the Messiah.

    ReplyDelete