I'm working on answering objections to the Outsider Test for Faith and was wondering if anyone can do better than I have done. Here are Christian apologist Norman Geisler's objections:
1) “If ‘most of us most of the time come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning,’ then can we not assume that Loftus came to his atheistic views the same way?”I've numbered them so when you respond you can refer to these separate objections. I'm interested in listening to the debate.
2) “Further, if one should have the presumption of skepticism toward any belief system, especially his own, then why should Loftus not have the presumption of skepticism toward his own atheistic beliefs? The truth is that the outsider test is self-defeating since by it every agnostic should be agnostic about his own agnosticism and every skeptic would be skeptical of his own skepticism.”
3) "One form of the outsider argument leads Loftus to claim ‘believers are truly atheists with regard to all other religions but their own. Atheists just reject one more religion.” But can’t theists use the same basic argument and reject atheism. In brief, atheists are unbelievers with regard to all beliefs other than their own. Why don’t they just become unbelievers with regard to one more belief (namely, their atheism)?”
4) “Further, Loftus’ ‘outsider test' is contrary to common sense. By it we could eliminate the credibility of any holocaust survivor’s testimony because he was an 'insider.' But who better would know what happened than someone who went through it. Likewise, by this odd test one could deny his own self-existence since from an outsiders view (which he should take according to the test) his existence could be doubted or denied as an illusion. But what is more obvious and self-evident than one’s own existence?"