The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is a New Argument Against Religion
Yep, I think I have basically come up with a new argument in the history of religious criticism, even if there are a few prototypes of it to be found in the past. 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.
Here's the argument: If one's own religious faith cannot be sustained due to consistently applying the skepticism of the OTF, then believers must either abandon their faith or come up with good reasons why they should not have to take the OTF because it is faulty in some way. But they cannot come up with any good reasons why they should not be consistent in evaluating all religious faiths.
Here's the argument: If one's own religious faith cannot be sustained due to consistently applying the skepticism of the OTF, then believers must either abandon their faith or come up with good reasons why they should not have to take the OTF because it is faulty in some way. But they cannot come up with any good reasons why they should not be consistent in evaluating all religious faiths.
112 comments:
John,
Over a year ago I took apart the OTF. My arguments stand and you have had nothing to say about it. I show that your test is essentially and strawman.
For others that might want to see my critique they can find it at...
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2009/05/outsider-test-of-faith-revisited.html
Sorry for the typo
How could this 'argument' be a strawman?
I'm not sure you know what a "strawman" is. For there to be a strawman fallacy contained within this argument, John would have to make an assertion about what others were claiming, and here he hasn't.
All he has really done is propose a thought experiment.
Are you possibly extrapolating what you believe his argument would be based on that thought experiment, because otherwise I'm pretty sure you are confused.
@ Ryan and Rhacodactylus
See the link and you will see what I mean.
Phil
I read your link and commented on the page but I felt the need to do so here as well.
You don't make the case for a strawman at all, in fact I would say the opposite is true and you falsely represent the thought experiment put forward by John.
You also engage in a fair amount of sophistry, complaining that there wasn't an explicit definition of "religion" contained in the post.
If you can find a definition of "religion" that invalidates this test for hypocrisy and inconsistency I would love to see it. To my thinking, the broader the definition, the more true the inconsistency becomes, as many people may avoid plying skepticism when it comes to other branches of Christianity, but I'd imagine most would be extremely skeptical of someone making offerings to Anubis.
Conversely, I suppose you could define religion so narrowly that only yours still qualifies, leaving no basis for comparison, but . . . I think I'm going to stick with my original thought, sophistry
NEW GAME WITH YOU LITTLE F*CKERS - SPEAK N DIE. Come see the latest DM videos for your viewing pleasure!
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm
Dear Rhacodactylus,
I feel obliged to do the same.
You are making the same mistake as John. The issues is not what we call religion is what do you mean by religion? How can you pit one faith against belief which has amazing credentials in history with in a nutter who thinks he is a unicorn? Answer you cannot because there are internal contradictions with the second which renders that faith invalid. This is the strawman that John and yourself establish.
Phil
@ Rhacodactylus
You said,
Conversely, I suppose you could define religion so narrowly that only yours still qualifies, leaving no basis for comparison, but . . . I think I'm going to stick with my original thought, sophistry
My Reply,
No, its not sophistry at all. And if you get a tight working definition of religion then John fails to have a outsider test of faith all together.
Its John's test that is sophistry.
Phil
I'm starting to think your Google-Fu may be weak.
Religion:
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
You pick which one we use, then argue why John is incorrect rationally.
And, this is the last time I'm going to mention it, but I'm still convinced you don't know what a straw man is so here
A straw man is based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument, what argument of yours are either of us misrepresenting?
On a side note, you are utilizing a tautology in your argument.
Specifically you said:
"How can you pit one faith against belief which has amazing credentials in history with in a nutter who thinks he is a unicorn?"
This is essentially a claim that since your faith is correct, it is not subject to the same skepticism as an incorrect faith. You have started with your conclusion sir, before even running the thought experiment.
The sad part is that (in my estimation) you are exactly who this exercise was intended for, people who have never applied their skepticism of other faiths to their own. At the end of the day, Atheists and Theists only disagree on the number of faiths that are total bullshit by 1 =)
Sorry about the excessively long comments John
How can you pit one faith against belief which has amazing credentials in history with in a nutter who thinks he is a unicorn?
In the year 2010, it is easy to say this. Imagine if you lived 2,000 years ago as Christianity was getting its start. Christianity would not have had much time to amass "credentials" but yet would still have believed it, no? Why should credentials be a pre-requisite for truth? 1,000 years from now that guy who claims to be a unicorn may have the largest number of religious followers.
John, you may have put the argument very well, but I do not for a second think that you're the first to come up with the idea of approaching _insert your religion_ with the same skepticism as _insert any other religion_.
I know I was using this argument myself as early as 2003, and I didn't think it especially novel at the time, or even anything special. Mostly it was just rather obvious. I mean, the Christian (or whatever) says they know that their beliefs are true, and you say, "well, what about the Muslim (or whatever else) that says the same thing, that feels the same way about their religion as you do about yours? Why is yours more believable, what's different about yours?" is just the obvious thing to ask. There are plenty of deconversion stories that mention such things which predate your discovery of the OTF -- they may not call it that, they may not refine it to the level that you have, but the core is there, and obvious.
Here's one from 2003:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/hobbs.html
And I dare say it goes back much before 2003, probably goes back hundreds or even thousands of years.
Not to say you have not done a very good job of putting the argument forth, but the core idea of the argument is hardly novel. If anything, the idea is so obvious that nobody has bothered to spend a whole lot of time on it, refining it, honing, etc, as you have done (and good on you for doing it) but it's definitely not new, at the core.
@ Rhacodactylus
Thanks for the dictionary definitions.
You say...
You pick which one we use, then argue why John is incorrect rationally.
My Reply,
Why don't you ask John which one he means and then apply that definition to the religions in the world John wants comparison with and then I will have a look ;-)
You said,
A straw man is based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument,
My Reply,
Yep that's what I thought it was and John's misrepresentation of religion (whatever he thinks that to be) is comparable when he argues that everyone in their own religions thinks there's is correct. This is the strawman.
Phil
@ Rhacodactylus
You said,
This is essentially a claim that since your faith is correct, it is not subject to the same skepticism as an incorrect faith. You have started with your conclusion sir, before even running the thought experiment.
My Reply,
Careful here, I have not made any claim that any religion here is correct or that my faith is. I simply state as I have been doing that the comparison is faulty. It looks as though you are just trying to find any flaw you can here and it is rather pathetic.
You said,
The sad part is that (in my estimation) you are exactly who this exercise was intended for, people who have never applied their skepticism of other faiths to their own.
My Reply,
Hmmmm, well I am glad that we don't live in the reality of your estimation.
Phil
@ Chris,
The credentials are the same for Christianity as the where when they found Jesus' tomb empty.
Phil
Reverend
Ware did you go to seminary?
What degree do you have?
Ehh, I dunno John. You've certainly canonized it in a way, but it's definitely not a new argument.
To Philip Brown:
You make countless assumptions, without merit. You assume the Bible is a reliable historical account of events. It is not. That, alone, shows you've failed the OTF – because you've failed to apply due skeptical scrutiny to your favored holy text.
@ exreformed
You said,
Ware [sic - where] did you go to seminary?
What degree do you have?
My Reply,
Again exreformed this is not facebook.
Phil
@ Mike D,
Thanks for your opinion. You are wrong however and can debate you but i suggest that we do this on another blog perhaps mine?
Phil
Although I hadn't read you at the time, the reasoning inside the OTF was one of the arguments that made me give up belief.
I realized that if I applied the same skepticism to Christianity that I applied to other religions (say Islam), I could not honestly believe.
It is a powerful argument, if seriously pondered.
I'm officially convinced the whole DM character is a joke. A really annoying and not that funny joke, but definitely a joke. I mean come on, all he does is link to atheist videos!
Rev Brown,
I'm not wrong, but I'm happy to discuss/debate. I linked in my last comment to a comprehensive rebuttal of Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ", which is all about the reliability of the Bible, on my blog and you're more than welcome to jump in and correct my errors.
If you have anything in particular you've written that you'll like me to consider, drop a link and I'll check it out. Cheers.
@ Mike D,
You said,
If you have anything in particular you've written that you'll like me to consider, drop a link and I'll check it out. Cheers.
My Reply,
Check out my blog! if there is anything that you disagree with then comment.
Phil
Thanks for your comments, but keep in mind what I said was new:
Here's the argument: If one's own religious faith cannot be sustained due to consistently applying the skepticism of the OTF, then believers must either abandon their faith or come up with good reasons why they should not have to take the OTF because it is faulty in some way. But they cannot come up with any good reasons why they should not be consistent in evaluating all religious faiths.
Rev Phillip, all you must do is be skeptical of YOUR faith with the same level you are when evaluating the faiths you reject.
Now you can go around saying one should test his beliefs all you want to. The problem with that milquetoast statement is that every believe will respond that they do. You do!
But tell them to do what I'm asking and THAT will get their attention.
Cheers.
This is definitely nothing new. What you're basically saying is that inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. Christian apologists have been saying this for years, especially in dealing with Muslim apologist. As an example, Muslims appeal to the most radical liberal sources when arguing against Christianity, even though the same sources would use the very same arguments against Islam. Thus, Christians "can't" use liberal sources when arguing against Islam.
Listen to James White's debates with Muslims, in particular Shabir Ally, where he regularly points this out.
As a Christian apologist, I agree with the OTF as far as I understand it.
Welcome Mike! If you're a Christian apologist then stick around and test your apologetics against what we throw at you.
Cheers
DM, How does it feel to be as sure you're right as militant Muslims do. They even fly into buildings they're so sure of it. And if they're right I'll see you in hell with all other non-Muslims. Take the OTF to be sure.
Giordano Sagredo has left a new comment on your post "The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is a New Argumen...":
Stevec written:
If anything, the idea is so obvious that nobody has bothered to spend a whole lot of time on it, refining it, honing, etc, as you have done (and good on you for doing it) but it's definitely not new, at the core.
Indeed, 'Think critically, and go where the evidence leads you' has been the motto of skeptics for millenia. No?
OTF will work fairly well, I think, when posed to those people that actually are critical of other religions. Most people are not. They just carry on not worrying about such philosophy matters.
But there is a large population of rabid idiot Christians in the US, from what I see, who actually are very critical of other religions.
The OTF, while not unique in any way in terms of ideas or arguments, while it is just rewarmed 'critical thinking' as you would see here in grade school course, and is admittedly written in a slightly less crisp and engaging fashion than (perhaps) Hume, I do disagree with you.
OTF is written so it's uniquely well-suited to this new brand of Christian that truly likes to critically attack any other religion.
John was one of those crazy ignorant American Christians for many years, by his own admission. He is specially well standing, then, to provide the arguments in a language they will understand and that will resonate with their stupid narrow and contentious lifestyle, given that this is also his way of life.
Sorry if my English isn't first language, is bad.
Welcome Giordano Sagredo! You didn't need to delete your comment.
Hi John,
Thanks for the response. It has taken a while.
You said,
Rev Phillip, all you must do is be skeptical of YOUR faith with the same level you are when evaluating the faiths you reject.
My Reply,
Sure, and that's when we start by taking the faiths statements of belief into account and find that Christianity differs from them all and cannot be compared.
So, you will abandon the OTF when?
Phil
John, is the OTF an argument (not neutral) or is it a test?
Regardless, the OTF may be somewhat new, but the basic idea is not. Descarte started this idea of questioning all knowledge as a harsh skeptic with the intention (like the OTF) of coming up with a neutral means to arive at knowledge. And Hume destroyed this project and showed that no objective neutral path to certain knowledge exists. So for those of us who believe in knowledge and have rejected standards like the OTF that preceded it, we say "so what? You've started a project similar to Descartes that fails as Hume demonstrated. We'll just respond as we do to hume. We reject neutrality, we reject knowledge without risk, we embrace that all knowledge demands faith let alone religious knowledge."
Again, my internal skeptic is much much meaner than yours because he is consistent and doesn't stop just because we aren't on about religion. I don't see any reason to give such an epistimic abuser preference in determining what I can and can't believe.
We are human, therefore we know. Knowledge cannot be neutral, thus a hard stance on neutrality is not human.
friends, i have addressed the OTF in a series of posts starting here
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-41.html
needless to say, it is a sham for the most part. like mr. brown, loftus has not even acknowledged that i'm responding to the "debunking christianity challenge". i guess he's not willing to engage when his own beliefs are put to the test.
The OTF is essentially a principle which singles out a few common logical fallacies and says "tut tut, don't do this." In particular, it reminds us that special pleading is a bad thing and that if we have a shred of intellectual honesty we would adopt a single methodology for evaluating claims. That means whatever process we use to evaluate Catholic arguments is the one we use for Baptist, Lutheran, Sunni Muslim, Orthodox Jew, Scientology, Mormon and Hindu claims.
If you think this is passe or you've shredded this argument, think again as you're certainly using even more logical fallacies yourself.
Rev Brown
Again, this isn't facebook.
Why don't you just admit you have NO degree then?
Thank you Dr Loftus.
Even if it isn't technically all a new idea, as some pointed out, so what???
Loftus has gotten the expression down in a way that will really worm its way into the mind of the American Evangelical, make them think. If he can truly suceed in such an endeavor, to get American Crazy Christian to think critically to themselves, his is more powerful than Hume in pragmatic sense.
It's not just the drug that matters, the medium of delivery is very important. If you have that expression.
John,
I am in complete agreement with the concept of your post.
The interesting thing that this comment thread points out to me is that some people are so inured to shutting off the rational part of their brain when it comes to religion, that it becomes a huge, system crashing event to try to evaluate it objectively.
"One cannot reason people out of a place that they did not reason themselves into."
"One cannot reason people out of a place that they did not reason themselves into."
I think you can't reason people out of a position if they don't value reason, but most people today DO value reason, even if they happen to adopt a position through faith. Build the cognitive dissonance and in some people it will resolve in your favour.
The interesting thing that this comment thread points out to me is that some people are so inured to shutting off the rational part of their brain when it comes to religion, that it becomes a huge, system crashing event to try to evaluate it objectively.
It has been demonstrated for about the last couple of hundred years that any system can be worked out rationally. And that's just with secular philosophy which is the primary discipline that studies reason, let alone the philosophy of religion. It is those who site reason as the all great guide who in fact cannot deal with the aim of reason itself which does not provide a full fledged epistemology.
John,
I would not be so proud of your Outsider Test. There are a lot of flaws with the Outsider test. You inadvertently point to one in your explanation of the Outsider test.
You say Christians are more critical of outside beliefs then their own. This is why they need to do the Outsiders Test. This of course is a human tendency.
People will have a more favorable bias towards their own beliefs and a neagtive bias toward outside beliefs. Atheists are the same way. The criticism that a Christian will read from atheist will be bias and at times even filled with prejudice.
The Outsider test is about finding truth. However, the atheist does not offer truth to the Christian. Instead the atheist offers a distortion of the Christian’s faith. They offer a distortion because the atheist like the Christian will be less critical towards their own beliefs and overly critical of the Christian beliefs.
So the Christian will not be receiving objective facts but subjective distortions. So the Outsider Test does not lead to truth but to a distorted view of the Christian belief.
-Harold
Harold: However, the atheist does not offer truth to the Christian. Instead the atheist offers a distortion of the Christian’s faith. They offer a distortion because the atheist like the Christian will be less critical towards their own beliefs and overly critical of the Christian beliefs.
I don't understand why this concept is so difficult; the outsider test is not an outsider interpreting your belief for you, it is you pretending that you had never heard of your religious belief before now. It doesn't automatically mean you convert to atheism as a result; you may, for example, find that Buddhism better satisfies your epistemological and ontological needs. People cross-convert all the time.
What you seem to be missing is that the scientific method has at its core the outsider test, and if you don't do it as part of your research, your peers will sure as hell do it for you. This is why, as PhysicistDave so eloquently mentioned in another thread, science has produced results, where philosophy and theology have just been covering the same ground for the last few thousand years.
Doesn't the argument, as you have stated it, commit the naturalistic fallacy, in that it derives an ought from an is?
Premise: Religion X does not pass the OTF.
Conclusion: Person who performs the OTF and concludes that it doesn't pass OUGHT to give up his religion.
Vic sorry about the other day.
But here's the problem about the naturalistic fallacy and I really would like a response from you.
That fallacy only works if this is a deductive argument much in the same way that the genetic fallacy only works as a deductive argument.
You have structured the above argument deductively, so by the very act of doing so rather that structuring it as an inductive argument you have not given it a charitable interpretation. I structure most all of my arguments inductively.
You know what I mean?
Harold - "The Outsider test is about finding truth."
I disagree. I believe the OTF is about determining whether one has "good reason" for maintaining ones faith (as true) while rejecting all other faiths (as false).
Harold - "...atheist offers a distortion of the Christian’s faith."
Perhaps, but in the most simplistic terms, atheists just don't believe in any gods. Christians believe in just one...or three...or one.
How is that a distortion?
What I mean Vic, is that given this data person X should give up his faith because his faith is PROBABLY false.
The Right Rev Phillip Brown says -"Sure, and that's when we start by taking the faiths statements of belief into account and find that Christianity differs from them all and cannot be compared."
You are probably wrong, but if you are correct, so what. How or why does "different" equal "true"?
The OTF freed me from faith and helped me develop my reasoning abilities once abandoned by faith feeling and fear.
It is a great argument and Phil is a perfect example of why it needs to be made.
hmmm, does making the argument inductive really avoid the naturalistic fallacy?
I studied at length deductive arguments. I did not do the same with induction, but I assume that drawing a general rule from many examples (even though you can't say for certain it is true of ALL examples). Still, with naturalism, you are only dealing with what is. even though you can't reason universalistically, from a set of what is, it doesn't seem like it is any more the case that you can non-fallaciously derive an ought.
@ exreformed,
Don't need to. Why is it important?
Phil
@ John
Thanks for the reply
You said,
Now you can go around saying one should test his beliefs all you want to. The problem with that milquetoast statement is that every believe [sic - believer] will respond that they do. You do!
My Reply,
Correct and I have evidence of me testing mine. Here in lies the difference. If someone just does not investigate as I criticised your test with then they have failed basic epistemology. But lack of a good epistemology should not make a link with scepticism. Herein lies the fallacy.
Phil
@ trae norsworthy
Good response. I commend everyone to read his link.
@ Bob,
You said,
You are probably wrong, but if you are correct, so what. How or why does "different" equal "true"?
My Reply,
It does not but in the OFT it should not be lumped in with all the other 'religions' because it skews the test.
Phil
@ Chuck,
The OTF freed me from faith and helped me develop my reasoning abilities once abandoned by faith feeling and fear.
Wow? It must have done wonders for your reasoning, but not enough to see its a fallacy. Oh and chuck I took the test.
Phil
"That fallacy only works if this is a deductive argument much in the same way that the genetic fallacy only works as a deductive argument."
Hi John
If the problem with the naturalistic fallacy is that arguments that commit it derive an 'ought' from an 'is,' how is that problem alleviated by deriving a 'probably ought' from an 'is'? It seems to me as if the same problems remain, since the fundamental problem just is deriving values from facts.
That said, I don't think the argument as you've formulated it commits the fallacy, since the premise, viz. some religion doesn't pass the OTF, is a value premise (since the OTF, as I understand it, just is an appeal to standards of rationality, fairness, etc.).
Reverend Phillip Brown said...
@ exreformed,
Don't need to. Why is it important?
Phil
I am glad we don't say that when we go to the medical doctors office. So, tell me, can anyone off the street with no education open there own clinic in your country?
I took the test and became an outsider and then became skeptical of the OTF. The whole thing self-destructs.
@ exreformed
You said,
I am glad we don't say that when we go to the medical doctors office. So, tell me, can anyone off the street with no education open there own clinic in your country?
My Reply,
What has this go to do with anything?
Phil
@ Ray,
BRILLIANT of course the OFT has to be subject itself to OFT lol
Phil
BRILLIANT of course the OFT has to be subject itself to OFT lol
No, that's not brilliant. That's whatchamacallit, stupid.
It's a methodology for preventing errors. You can apply it to itself and end up with itself but big whoop. What do you really imagine you'll accomplish?
No, when you apply it to itself it self-destructs. You end up not being able to trust it. It's unreliable.
Ray - what leads you to say that? Are you aware that it isn't a claim or conclusion but a methodology?
Tyro, a method can be self refuting. I'm not saying that the OTF is self refuting; rather, I'm saying that you can't repudiate the charge that is is self refuting merely by categorizing it as a method.
Let's say a method comprises at least one command. Now, take the method,
"For every command C, disregard C."
Eric - I didn't do that. I *did* ask why people think it's self-defeating. There must be some yawning chasm between our understanding and before I start blathering in defense, I'd like to understand their point. Who knows, they may be right.
"I *did* ask why people think it's self-defeating. There must be some yawning chasm between our understanding and before I start blathering in defense, I'd like to understand their point. Who knows, they may be right."
Ah, Okay Tyro. My bad.
Can tyro or anyone else intrepret my last comment for Rev the troll brown.
I just want to see if my point came across, here it is again.
Reverend Phillip Brown said...
@ exreformed,
Don't need to. Why is it important?
Phil
I am glad we don't say that when we go to the medical doctors office. So, tell me, can anyone off the street with no education open there own clinic in your country?
@exreformed
I am glad we don't say that when we go to the medical doctors office. So, tell me, can anyone off the street with no education open there own clinic in your country?
I confess I didn't get your point. Are you saying that the Phillip needs to prove his credentials before you'll listen to what he has to say? If so, I'm not sure I agree that's relevant especially for the informal conversation in blog comments.
I'm also not sure that any theological degree qualifies anyone to do anything so what does it matter?
@ exreformed,
You said,
Can tyro or anyone else intrepret my last comment for Rev the troll brown.
My Reply
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.
Please show me from the comments where I have done any of this. If you cannot I'll wait for your apology.
John, have you formalized both the OTF and the argument from the OTF anywhere? If not, may I put in a request for such a formalization? I think it would help tremendously, since there seem to be so many different understandings of just what the OTF is and just what the argument from it is.
@ Tyro,
You said,
I confess I didn't get your point. Are you saying that the Phillip needs to prove his credentials before you'll listen to what he has to say? If so, I'm not sure I agree that's relevant especially for the informal conversation in blog comments.
My Reply,
Thanks Tyro. I'm very glad to see your not biased but you are a rare breed in the blogging world. Cheers.
Phil
Tyro,
I say it because once one who holds to the outsider test takes the outsider test and applies it to itself it self-destructs. The one who is skeptical becomes skeptical of her skepticism.
Rev Brown
O.K. that is why I asked for another opinion to see if I was not making sense. Which is quite easy for me to do.
I am sorry for calling you a troll(I've had a shitty day, Got Bronchitis). I actually like reading your comments even if we do disagree.
I was just trying to get you to admit that you did not have a degree. As far as clarification about on my Dr. comment. I was trying to say, I think it a degree is very important. Do they just let anyone be a medical doctor? No, you have to go to med school.
I don't have a degree yet, but I am a firm believer(just like most other professions) that a Minister should have one. I am not saying you have to have one to post on this blog, or for me to listen to you. I am saying someone who is a Pastor should have one. The last denomination I was in required all ministers to have an mdiv.
But that is just my opinion.
@ exreformed
No worries but thanks for the apology.
I have the appropriate degree to be a pastor.
Phil
I say it because once one who holds to the outsider test takes the outsider test and applies it to itself it self-destructs. The one who is skeptical becomes skeptical of her skepticism.
What does that even mean?
So you ask questions and doubt that empiricism or scepticism are valid, fine. That's good. What answers do you imagine that you'll arrive at?
I'm just trying to imagine the person who recognizes that special pleading arrives to falsehoods then extending this to start doubting scepticism and so... therefore Jesus? Fill in these blanks for me because I'm still lost.
Tyro: I think Ray is trying to make a funny.
Thx. It's hard to tell with the good Rev piling on like it's a brilliant insight. I tell you, the good Poe can strike anywhere, any time.
Rev Phil
Why didn't you just say you had a degree the first time I asked? LOL
I've never taken the OTF to be an argument unto itself from which any firm conclusions can be derived. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.
It's really a thought experience that appeals to the principle of parsimony, which should in theory inspire further critical inquiry from believers.
Addendum: what the OTF really does is rightly place the burden on the theist to demonstrate that they aren't committing the fallacy of special pleading.
Rev Phill - "...but in the OFT it [Christianity] should not be lumped in with all the other 'religions' because it skews the test."
Why? Because Christianity is "special"?
If the OTF is about determining whether one has good reason to maintain ones faith, how does lumping all faiths together "skew" the test?
If anything, that is exactly what makes the OTF so workable.
And honestly, by you claiming that your faith is special because it is "Christian" shows that you have never taken the OTF as you claim.
Phil,
Care to share how you passed the test?
And how could you take a test that admit is a fallacy?
You are a grade A hypocrite arent' you?
Thanks.
...not to mention that he only said he has an "appropriate degree"
in what?
sheep-herding?
and at what level?
PhD? G.E.D.?
Middle school diploma?
Bob,
I agree that the Outsider Test has the possibility of helping a person find truth. The problem is one can not find truth if they are getting faulty information.
“Christians believe in just one...or three...or one.
How is that a distortion?”
The above statement of yours illustrates the problem. Atheists do not just give their belief about the existence of God. Atheists also make comments and give opinions concerning Christian beliefs. The opinions and views of atheist about Christianity is what I am talking about.
Let us look at your above comment. This comment is not distorted it shows your lack of knowledge of Christianity. Hence, a Christian should be very careful when reading Atheist materials concerning Christianity. Atheist and atheism are not arbiters of truth. They have biases and prejudices just like the rest of us.
-Harold
Ildi,
the outsider test is not an outsider interpreting your belief for you, it is you pretending that you had never heard of your religious belief before now.
There is more to the Outsider Test than this. The Outsider Test posed by John Loftus also requires the Christian to read only atheistic criticism about Christianity.
This is where the Outsider Test runs into problems. The atheist criticisms are nothing more than subjective interpretation of Christianity. Further more, if the Outsider Test is at the heart of science then it also depends on accurate tools of measurement and description.
In science if the scientist has faulty tools then their data is useless; hence the same for the Outsider Test. The tools the Christian is to use, according to John Loftus, are writings by atheist like Mr. Loftus. Because the writing of atheist are bias and prejudice against Christianity these writings are not a valid way of seeing if Christianity is true or false.
This is my point. So if were are using the scientific method we should only look at writings that are objective so that we can have correct data to make our decision about the validity of Christianity.
-Harold
@GearHedEd
...not to mention that he only said he has an "appropriate degree"
in what?
He's a Reverend, you get appropriate degrees in cereal boxes. If you want, I'll grant you degrees in fairiology, fairism and high temperature fairy physics which will give you exactly the same amount of knowledge into God.
More seriously, what the hell does it matter what degree he has? Can we please stop digging at what the guy is and go back to what he's saying. We're talking about the OTF which has us avoiding logical fallacies so how about a little less 'ad hominem' here.
And FYI that means you dismiss someone's arguments because of some irrelevant quality of the person, it doesn't mean that you've merely insulted someone. So let's get back to the good stuff of dissing his silly arguments and insulting his looks, way of spelling and ability to get dates. You know, quality atheistic arguments.
woah... lots of comments on this one... no time to read through them all, but I'd like to drop a quick note on the OTF.
I have Loftus, Mullhouser (at Common Sense Atheism) and Florien (at Unreasonable Faith) to thank for bringing me in to the reality of free questioning and doubt.
I have been able to pose the OTF to a few Christian friends of mine... and this has shown to be very well accepted as a means of seeking and questioning. They agree with the approach, and some have even admitted that they've never given so much as a minute of thought to the outside religions and faiths of the world. The quote "when you understand why you reject the gods of other religions, you'll understand why I reject yours." Powerful quote... because people don't know why they reject the other gods and faiths... so now, the question is brought to their attention... and either they must continue in their blissful ignorance, or begin an honest examination of WHY they believe what they believe.
For me, this is the most honest, non-threatening approach to discussions with a theist.
How do you go logically from
1) X is probably false.
to
2) A person should give up belief X.
Ever bought a lottery ticket?
Another way of putting it would be, "What kind of 'ought' is it?
You ought not buy lottery tickets, because you're throwing your money away?
Just asking...
You ought not to say that your lottery ticket is definitely a winner or you know it will win.
Vic, it works like this:
1) X is probably false.
to
2) A person should give up belief X because it is probably false.
One can hope against the probabilities but that's different than going with them.
Your faith is not in the probabilities so that's why you continue stressing the possibilities.
In other news the Loch Ness monster exists but has evaded our efforts to detect him.
Your faith is a joke, sorry to tell you the facts.
Harold - "Let us look at your above comment - 'Christians believe in just one...or three...or one.' This comment is not distorted it shows your lack of knowledge of Christianity."
Odd. You would think I learnt something about Christianity after 25 years as a bible believing, bible studying church goer.
Harold, your problem is you can't see how ridiculous the trinity is because you haven't OTF'd it yet, and therefor you consider any criticism of that belief to be from the point of ignorance.
I am not speaking for myself here. I haven't reached the conclusion, obviously, that Christianity is improbable. I am just focusing on your statement that a person ought not to believe something they consider to be probably false. Is this so obviously true as to not require argument.
A person ought not to believe something to be true they consider to be probably false.
One can believe he will get rich or be famous or marry the girl next door, and believing helps make it so, like a self-fulfilling prophecy (much like prayers BTW).
But that's a different kind of believing than what I'm talking about.
I should never believe there are fairies if it's probably the case they don't exist. Belief in this case does not depend on whether I believe it is the case.
Bob,
First off at age 23 I left Christianity and became an unbeliever. That was a lot of fun. Then at age 37 Yoga lead me back to Christianity. So Bob I have taken the OTF.
Secondly, there are two types of people to avoid when taking the OTF. The first are the people who are ignorant about the Christian faith. The second are people who know the Christian faith but distort or misrepresent it for their own purpose. A Christian should only listen to respectful, knowledgeable and objective criticism of their faith. Actually this would apply to anyone. No atheist should listen to Pat Robertson about atheism.
Thirdly, I find criticism of my faith to be important. Yet I don’t just listen to anyone. I don’t listen to people who do not respect me or my faith or to people who knowingly twist my faith. Now the people who are ignorant of my faith I will listen to them as long as they are willing to be corrected when needed.
Lastly, Atheists are not arbiters of truth. They are like everyone else. Some things they believe are true; some things are a mixture of truth and delusion. Some things atheist believes are simply delusion. When reading atheist material a Christian just needs to keep this in mind and realize that not all atheist’s criticisms are equal. The OTF needs to deal only with respectful, knowledgeable and objective criticism from the atheist.
-Harold
Eric, my argument seems simple enough to understand.
If one's own religious faith cannot be sustained due to consistently applying the skepticism of the OTF, then believers must either abandon their faith or come up with good reasons why they should not have to take the OTF because it is faulty in some way. But they cannot come up with any good reasons why they should not be consistent in evaluating all religious faiths.
Harold said,
"The OTF needs to deal only with respectful, knowledgeable and objective criticism from the atheist."
Atheists don't administer the OTF to Christians.
It's the Christian who gives him- or her- self the test, as if she were an outsider looking at Christianity from the perspective of a different faith.
Atheists aren't telling you what to believe here.
Al the OTF says is "look at your own faith objectively, from an outsider's point of view, where the "outsider" could just as easily be a Hindu, or a Buddhist, etc.
i.e., a Hindu finds your Christianity less than convincing.
Why?
Rex
The interesting thing that this comment thread points out to me is that some people are so inured to shutting off the rational part of their brain when it comes to religion, that it becomes a huge, system crashing event to try to evaluate it objectively.
Aside from this not being true of many, many followers of Christ, it is called the compartmentalization argument. I have addressed that here:
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/09/l-45.html
Chuck O'Connor
The OTF freed me from faith
All you did was swap one faith for another. Why is the one (nontheism) better than the other (theism)
helped me develop my reasoning abilities once abandoned by faith feeling and fear.
You still maintain a faith so why does one faith allow reasoning and another doesn’t? also, followers of Christ are exhorted to be reasonable and rational.
Tyro said...
It's a methodology for preventing errors.
And that methodology is not above reproach
You can apply it to itself and end up with itself but big whoop.
The question is whether or not you really do apply an outsider test to the otf and end up with the otf. Even if you do, you end up back at the objections I raised on my blog about the otf.
What do you really imagine you'll accomplish?
The same thing that loftus thinks he is initially accomplishing by using it in the first place, just about the otf itself instead of a religion
Tyro said...
So you ask questions and doubt that empiricism or scepticism are valid
Not exactly. The skepticism hasn’t necessarily disappeared. It’s just been redirected and more appropriately quantified
What answers do you imagine that you'll arrive at?
The degree to which skepticism is healthy and where that skepticism should be aimed.
Mike D said...
what the OTF really does is rightly place the burden on the theist to demonstrate that they aren't committing the fallacy of special pleading.
I think you are overlooking that the same could be said of nontheism. Why can’t the otf be applied to nontheism and the result be that it is untenable as a belief system? It can be. Furthermore, ray has accurately applied mcgrath’s objection of dennett’s religious meme to the otf. Being skeptical of the otf means that it might not be an accurate way of examining beliefs.
trae norsworthy,
So you're so sceptical that you have actually managed to defend special pleading. Care to sketch out that reasoning for us?
Is the OTF sufficient? Of course not, but as it's just a way of avoiding a logical fallacy, it is necessary.
What if someone simply says that yes, of course, what they believe is probably false, but it makes them feel better and doesn't harm others, so why not?
I'm not recommending this, I am just asking what the argument against it is.
GearHedEd,
“Al the OTF says is "look at your own faith objectively, from an outsider's point of view, where the "outsider" could just as easily be a Hindu, or a Buddhist, etc.”
I am not the one who came up with the Outsider Test. John Loftus is the one who proposed taking the Outsider test from an atheist view point. I am just responding to that point of view. I actually agree with you that the outsider test should include other faiths. However, one must always beware of biases in criticisms from anyone, Hindu or atheist.
Harold
Harold,
You still don't get it.
Tyro
So you're so sceptical that you have actually managed to defend special pleading.
i think my posts on my blog should be sufficient to show that i don't buy that the otf guards against "special pleading". the point of the post is that if the otf is going to be consistent, it should at the very least be able to survive it's own test.
also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical of skepticism. the benefit is that it keeps us from denying things that we know to be true. that's what happens when you work hume's methods out to their logical conclusions.
it's just a way of avoiding a logical fallacy, it is necessary.
we'll have to agree to disagree. in one sense it's not necessary because it's impossible. i sketched that out on my blog. in another sense, it's a truism so it doesn't really say anything distinctive or explanatory.
What if someone simply says that yes, of course, what they believe is probably false, but it makes them feel better and doesn't harm others, so why not?
interesting. utilitarianism. i can see the objections being along the lines of this reasoning not contributing to progress or morality. however, since there are plenty of christians who do contribute in those ways, i can't think of a reason why there would be an objection.
perhaps mr. loftus could let us know what he thinks.
@trae - while I admire you promoting your own blog, I'm not that interested. If you have any good arguments, you can present them here.
the benefit is that it keeps us from denying things that we know to be true.
No. Scepticism only denies things that we know to be false. It reserves judgement on things which may be true but are not well supported or not well evidenced. If we know it to be true, then sceptical enquiry support it in all cases.
If you see scepticsm rejecting some idea of yours then it's certainly because you don't *know* it to be true but rather that you merely want it to be true.
If you could find an example where sceptical enquiry rejects something which is known to be true, you would truly have made a profound discovery.
Tyro
while I admire you promoting your own blog, I'm not that interested. If you have any good arguments, you can present them here.
i'm not promoting. i'm trying to prevent the duplication of work. it would be nice if people would respond to an idea there instead of asking me to port it over here when it's already available there.
Scepticism only denies things that we know to be false. It reserves judgement on things which may be true but are not well supported or not well evidenced. If we know it to be true, then sceptical enquiry support it in all cases.
this is a grossly oversimplified view of skepticism because there are different varities of skepticism and each operates differently. the point is that hume's version (causality can only be inferred) definitely led to the doubt of justified true beliefs or beliefs that are warranted.
again, there is no reason why we can't be skeptical of the skepticism. it helps us determine which kinds of skepticism and the degree to which they should be employed are practical.
it could be that the otf is a form of special pleading that would only be uncovered by applying an outsider test to it.
I don't think I know many theists who make much effort to reasonably argue against other faiths. They are more interested in justifying their faith, so they don't have much practice using reason to test any faith, much less their own.
Post a Comment