I just cannot seem to disabuse him of his inconsistent position. He said:
June 29, 2011
What is the Outsider’s Perspective?
Almost all of the objections to the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) are red herrings placed in the road to sidetrack us from getting at the truth. They do not understand the perspective of an outsider, or they grossly misrepresent it in favor of faith. Since I like beating my head against the wall, let me try again.
June 28, 2011
The End of Christianity is Here!
Amazon is now shipping my anthology The End of Christianity.
I hope the effort was worth it. Let me know as you get your copy. It'll surely be hotly contested on Amazon and elsewhere. The reaction should prove to be intense. Stay tuned.
I hope the effort was worth it. Let me know as you get your copy. It'll surely be hotly contested on Amazon and elsewhere. The reaction should prove to be intense. Stay tuned.June 27, 2011
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, by Chris Mooney
Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever. Link.
June 26, 2011
Dr. Flannagan Denigrates Science, Why Am I Not Surprised?
[Written by John W. Loftus] This is getting ridiculous and predictable. So let me get this straight, okay? In order to believe, Flannagan must denigrate science. Get it.? What utter rubbish. This alone should cause believers to question why they believe what they do based on their upbringing in a Christian culture. Science is the only antidote to how easily we can believe and defend what we were taught on our Mama's knees.
Why Dr. Flannagan Fails History, Dr. Hector Avalos Responds
Dr. Flannagan's use of sources shows some careless scholarship.
Dr. Matt Flannagan, of the MandM blog, has directed a few criticism at my chapters (“Yahweh is A Moral Monster” and “Atheism was not the Cause of the Holocaust”) in The Christian Delusion. Those criticisms rest not only on a basic misunderstanding and misreading of my arguments, but also on a very selective and uncritical reading of the sources Flannagan cites for support.
Dr. Matt Flannagan, of the MandM blog, has directed a few criticism at my chapters (“Yahweh is A Moral Monster” and “Atheism was not the Cause of the Holocaust”) in The Christian Delusion. Those criticisms rest not only on a basic misunderstanding and misreading of my arguments, but also on a very selective and uncritical reading of the sources Flannagan cites for support.
Believers Really Ought Not to Argue Against the OTF
Because by doing so only makes my arguments stronger, and they were already strong enough. One continuing objection is to turn the OTF against non-believers, that we ought to subject our non-beliefs to the skepticism of an outsider. I've addressed this ad nausea. But let's see with a thought experiment why this does not work. Let's say there are no non-believers at all, none. Everyone on earth believes in a religion of some kind. Let's say no skeptic ever proposed the OTF either. Christian, how would YOU propose to assess religions fairly without any double standards? This is how you do it now. Surely at least one believer would come up with the thought that since he already uses the OTF in examining other religions then why not use it to examine his own faith? This reveals that if there is any inconsistency at all in the OTF it is how believers themselves assess truth claims. As I've said, it should only take 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.
June 25, 2011
What Jesus Christ Had to Say About the Outsider Test for Faith!
This is my chosen title for a guest sermon I'll be preaching for the "One True Church of Jesus Christ That Has Ever Existed in History." The preacher is away on vacation. This church meets in a little building on "Faith" Street in a town called Saint Paul, Missouri, the "Show Me" state (never-mind the oxymoron). They have a membership of 10 people, all related to each other in some way. Here are my chosen texts. How should I develop my sermon?
Debating Critics On The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)
[Written by John W. Loftus] I have had several debates in defense of the OTF. This post will serve as the key resource for these links.
First look at The Outsider Test for Faith, along with a link embedded within that post.
In no particular order here are several debates I've had about the OTF with several people:
Chris Gadsden who obfuscates on The OTF
Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" .
EricRC, a Ph.D. student in philosophy, On the Fundamental Objection to the OTF.
Dr. Matthew Flannagan.
Dr. Randal Rauser.
Dr. Steve Lovell.
Dr. Thomas Talbott.
Dr. Victor Reppert.
David Marshall.
Thrasymachus.
Rev. Phillip Brown.
Steve Hays and Jason Engwer.
Paul Manata.
Is it over yet?
First look at The Outsider Test for Faith, along with a link embedded within that post.
In no particular order here are several debates I've had about the OTF with several people:
Chris Gadsden who obfuscates on The OTF
Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" .
EricRC, a Ph.D. student in philosophy, On the Fundamental Objection to the OTF.
Dr. Matthew Flannagan.
Dr. Randal Rauser.
Dr. Steve Lovell.
Dr. Thomas Talbott.
Dr. Victor Reppert.
David Marshall.
Thrasymachus.
Rev. Phillip Brown.
Steve Hays and Jason Engwer.
Paul Manata.
Is it over yet?
The Ledge, a Pro-Atheist Movie to be Released July 8th
Here's a clip with the standard Christian responses to reasoned arguments:
Dr. Flannagan Just Does Not Get it, The OTF Again and Again and Again...
[Written by John W. Loftus] Christian philosopher Matthew Flannagan wrote a review of The Christian Delusion for Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He offers nothing but canards against the OTF. Was he not paying attention?
On Rejecting the Gospel Because of Sin
That's the Christian claim, that non-Christians reject the gospel because we prefer to sin (or do wrong). Let's try to put this canard to rest.
June 24, 2011
For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality
Written by TGBaker:
I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.
I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.
"The End of Christianity," My Biggest Problem, and My Promise to You
I have received some copies of The End of Christianity already. Prometheus Books is in the process of distributing them. It has the look and feel of The Christian Delusion,
my previous book. From the planning stage to the final production TEC took a year and nine months of hard work. It is much easier to grab already published material and place it in a book than in getting new essays from scholars. The chapters in both books are new essays. They both took a lot of work.
And they are both great books, as the recommendations tell us coming from both Christians and skeptics who agree. There are several chapters worth the price of the books themselves. Which ones might only depend on your own particular interests. Even though I read and re-read them several times, editing and going back and forth with the authors, Richard Carrier, the copy-editor and production staff, I am reading it again in hard copy format wondering if the decisions made were good ones, and trying to locate any typos we may have missed. I just re-read Jaco Gericke's chapter titled: "Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?" That chapter alone is worth the price of the book. It's awesome. I can only guess how Christians will try to gerrymander around it, since he closed all the loopholes they might want to use in escaping his conclusion, that God doesn't exist because Christians no longer believe in Yahweh, a tribal god among others in the Israelite religion.
already. Prometheus Books is in the process of distributing them. It has the look and feel of The Christian Delusion, my previous book. From the planning stage to the final production TEC took a year and nine months of hard work. It is much easier to grab already published material and place it in a book than in getting new essays from scholars. The chapters in both books are new essays. They both took a lot of work. And they are both great books, as the recommendations tell us coming from both Christians and skeptics who agree. There are several chapters worth the price of the books themselves. Which ones might only depend on your own particular interests. Even though I read and re-read them several times, editing and going back and forth with the authors, Richard Carrier, the copy-editor and production staff, I am reading it again in hard copy format wondering if the decisions made were good ones, and trying to locate any typos we may have missed. I just re-read Jaco Gericke's chapter titled: "Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?" That chapter alone is worth the price of the book. It's awesome. I can only guess how Christians will try to gerrymander around it, since he closed all the loopholes they might want to use in escaping his conclusion, that God doesn't exist because Christians no longer believe in Yahweh, a tribal god among others in the Israelite religion.
June 23, 2011
Here's Your Chance to Vote on the OTF
Someone is using the OTF in a debate. You can vote on whether he did a good job with it. Check it out. Use it in your own debates.
Keith Parsons on Ethical Naturalism
He is a moral realist defending moral norms, something that Richard Carrier defends in the last chapter of The End of Christianity. See this post, and then see the postscript.
See this post, and then see the postscript.The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story
There is just something about the Christian story that makes me want to believe it. I know of no other story like this one. In fact, when I watch music videos of the Christian story I feel its psychological pull on me, and I'm a former believer who has rejected that story. So how much more does the story have a great amount of psychological pull on the hearts of others, especially believers, whose faith is confirmed whenever they ponder it. Case in point are the three videos below:
The Outsider Test: Pretend You're Hearing the Gospel for the First Time
This is just one of many ways to take the OTF:
June 22, 2011
Is Thomas Talbott a "True Skeptic"?
On pages 11-15 of his critique of the OTF Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott discusses “The Presumption of Skepticism.” According to him there are three “different kinds of skepticism.” There is “the skepticism of disbelief,” which sometimes requires “a kind of dogmatic certainty.” This is my kind of skepticism he opines, and he implicitly suggests I come across as a “closed-minded dogmatist.” The second kind of skepticism is that of “suspended belief,” which is his kind of skepticism that is “incompatible with dogmatic certainty and sometimes arises when one has the humility to recognize the limits of one’s own knowledge.” Since this is so he says of himself, “I am a true skeptic.” *cough* The third kind of skepticism is “merely the opposite of being overly gullible,” which is a “healthy skepticism” that everyone should have.
June 21, 2011
The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is Not Hard to Understand
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.
So the OTF uses the exact same standard that believers use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how believers assess truth claims. For it should only take 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.
If Christians want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths, one for their own faith and a different one for others, or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.
To read more on the OTF click here.
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.
So the OTF uses the exact same standard that believers use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how believers assess truth claims. For it should only take 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.
If Christians want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths, one for their own faith and a different one for others, or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.
To read more on the OTF click here.
Thomas Talbott Replies
I have found most of the criticisms of the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) are asking it to be something that it is not. The rest are based in a lack of understanding, probably because of the need to believe and defend what cannot be defended. The OTF is expressed to believers that they should examine their own faith with the same level of skepticism they use when examining the other religious faiths they reject. This has annoyed believers, since what it asks is that there should be no double standards when evaluating religious faiths, one for your own culturally inherited religious faith and a different one for the other religious faiths you reject.
June 20, 2011
The Idea of an Outsider, a Further Critique of Thomas Talbott, Part 1
On pages 15-20 of the paper written by Christian philosopher Thomas Talbott, “The Outsider Test for Faith: How Serious a Challenge Is It?,” he critiques the idea of an outsider. Let me begin with pages 15-16.
First let me say that whenever it comes to defending any argument critics will offer objections that the author may not have initially considered. This comes as no surprise since authors cannot usually anticipate everything. Even if they can anticipate additional objections they cannot say everything they know in an initial article or chapter. It’s an ongoing dialogue of learning as we go, in making the best case in light of new objections, in responding to these additional objections, and in refining or revising the argument in light of them. That’s why many articles in the journals end up being made into whole books. It looks as if that will happen with my OTF someday too.
First let me say that whenever it comes to defending any argument critics will offer objections that the author may not have initially considered. This comes as no surprise since authors cannot usually anticipate everything. Even if they can anticipate additional objections they cannot say everything they know in an initial article or chapter. It’s an ongoing dialogue of learning as we go, in making the best case in light of new objections, in responding to these additional objections, and in refining or revising the argument in light of them. That’s why many articles in the journals end up being made into whole books. It looks as if that will happen with my OTF someday too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)