Why Christianity MUST Pass the OTF

You already know the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) that I've proposed. It asks believers to test their own adopted religious faith from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism they use to evaluate other religious faiths.

If Christianity is the correct faith it should have been made by God to pass the OTF, especially if people will be cast into hell because it doesn’t. And this will happen according to Christian theology, for there are people who will end up in hell who could not be convinced to believe because of their non-Christian upbringing as outsiders.

14 comments:

ahswan said...

Have you ever taken the "outsider test" to your own belief system?

Anonymous said...

ahswan, yes I have, that's why I am a non-believer.

ahswan said...

I meant your current core beliefs. Have you ever seriously examined modernism / rationalism from a non-modernist point of view?

Anonymous said...

ahswan, you mean become Amish? No, I cannot go back in time only forward with the sciences.

Ken said...

ahswan:

Skepticism is the process of subjecting all important decisions to the outsider test including one's core beliefs -- to courageously follow the truth.

Anonymous said...

ahswan we arrive at our non-beliefs because the evidence of an outsider test is not sufficient to cause us to believe. So how can we subject these non-beliefs to any further testing?

Chuck O'Connor said...

"You meand become Amish?"

Brilliant!

LOL

ahswan said...

"No, I cannot go back in time only forward with the sciences."

Why aren't you willing to be skeptical about this? You seem to assume much.

And Ken, I understand what skepticism is. Most skeptics seem to only be selectively skeptical. John, at least, has been honest about his presuppositions. But if he challenges others to question their presuppositions, he should also question his own with the same honesty. Right? Or are some presuppositions (core beliefs) beyond question?

Anonymous said...

ahswan, I assume less and less every day as the sciences help us understand life and the cosmos. See my new post.

trae norsworthy said...

Ken

Skepticism is the process of subjecting all important decisions to the outsider test including one's core beliefs
this is a very misleading statement because all people go "outside" of their beliefs when they think critically about them. This does not constitute an "outsider test". It's implicit in human rationality. It does not necessitate that people go outside their beliefs in order to examine them. You don't get trained to paint by an engineer.

Here is the beginning of a series of posts on the otf

http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-41.html

to courageously follow the truth.
And what do you make of atheists who "follow the truth" and become christians?

trae norsworthy said...

John W. Loftus

No, I cannot go back in time only forward with the sciences.
This is a category mistake. Metaphysical matters are beyond the purview of science. Thinking that you are moving "forward" with science is to ignore an entire category of human existence (origins, purpose, destiny). Worse, some people believe that science can make decisions on things metaphysical such as morality, etc.

Mr. loftus you spend an inordinate amount of time on what you perceive to be the "benefits" of the otf and little to no time examining the issues with it. It seems that you're not applying the otf to the otf. by applying the test to itself, you may discover that it's nothing more than a dogma. you could call it the outsider test of the outsider test for faith.

we arrive at our non-beliefs because the evidence of an outsider test is not sufficient to cause us to believe. So how can we subject these non-beliefs to any further testing?
By realizing that artificially restricting yourself to an anti supernatural stance is untenable. No person can substantiate that naturalism is all there is or that there is no god.

I assume less and less every day as the sciences help us understand life and the cosmos.
I can't say that i agree with your perception of and faith in science. What is scientifically true today will not necessarily be tomorrow. To think that you are basing your life on empirical fact is actually a moving target. It's not a solid foundation. What most people don't realize is that there isn't a scientific method. There are scientific methods. This is evident in the dichotomies between standard physics, quantum physics and string theorists. They each approach empiricism differently. People still must cling to foundational beliefs for science to have any meaning. In other words, science must adhere to formulae in order to be coherent. That is a subjective element many people aren't even aware of in matters scientific. What's worse for your position is that people can't even agree on matters of the philosophy of science (such as demarcation) and yet, you think you are basing your noesis on it.

Victor Reppert said...

A Calvinist will say that people end up not believing, and going to hell, because God predestined that they should go there. So God gives some people insufficient evidence for his existence, but those are the people he's in the process of condemning anyway. So this wouldn't be a problem for a Calvinist.

Tom Talbott is a universalist, who thinks that everyone (even you!) is going to go to heaven anyway. So this wouldn't be a problem for him either.

Barry de la Rosa said...

@trae You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method - try looking it up sometime. It's funny how your arguments appear to be well-reasoned, and you enjoy employing large words, but it's painfully obvious you don't actually understand many of the concepts you allude to.

How for example do you propose applying a test of *faith* to an argument that doesn't require faith? No doubt you will reply with the standard "atheism requires more faith than religion" line... which again just goes to show your wilful ignorance.

I love your line "What most people don't realize is that there isn't a scientific method." What you obviously don't realise is that there is a scientific method - only one - and you're blatantly ignorant of it. Look it up sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method "1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

trae norsworthy said...

Barry de la Rosa

You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method - try looking it up sometime.
kicking things off with the obligatory ad hominem. you don't know what i've read and what i haven't.

How for example do you propose applying a test of *faith* to an argument that doesn't require faith?
if you're referring to the otf being that test, it has been said by loftus' chorus that the otf is not a "test of faith". it is a method to prevent a fallacy. if that is the case, why can't the method be tested by it's own methodology to find out if it's consistent and efficacious? btw, the otf most certainly does require faith.

What you obviously don't realise is that there is a scientific method - only one - and you're blatantly ignorant of it.
and your english comprehension could use some work. notice the words "A method..." that means plural. that means my statement is correct and i certainly am not the only person who realizes that. what you have quoted is how to recognize what a scientific method looks like, not that there is only one. a good characterization of my point is that it is a "cluster of practices and issues that are used in a variety of contexts and can be loosely called scientific methodologies".

i have already mentioned the dichotomies between standard physics, quantum physics and string theorists. They each approach empiricism differently. i'm not sure why you overlooked this obvious justification i provided.