The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) Again *Sigh*

A trial is a good example of an outsider looking in. No thumbs should be on the scales of justice. If there is a conflict of interest a judge or a lawyer should recuse themselves. The jury represents people who are uninvolved peers. None of this describes believers who examine their own faith. The OTF demands the impartiality of agnostic, which is worse on one's own religion but better on the religious faiths one rejects.

In a jury trial not everyone agrees. But that's a jury trial about an event that strictly speaking is "on the boards," that is, it's about an ordinary event rather than a supposed extraordinary miraculous event. The whole reason Christians object to the OTF is because they know their faith will not pass the OTF.

Regardless, someone on a jury should at least be able to justify his decision afterward based on the skepticism of an outsider. One cannot punt to faith when judging the case before him like believers do an every juncture. That is ONLY being fair.

SteveK asks: Why does Loftus think it a problem when rational 'outsiders' conclude that, given the evidence, Atheism is false and Christianity is true?

Those are not our only options! The options are myriad and every bit in between! Besides, a person who rejects Hinduism in India is considered an an atheist, while someone in Saudi Arabia who rejects Islam is considered an atheist, etc. That makes YOU an atheist in the same way since the definition of an atheist is a non-believer. I am simply a non-believer by virtue of the fact that your religion doesn't pass the OTF. I am an atheist just as you are a non-believer in Hinduism or Islam in other countries.

So the choice becomes one between belief and non-belief. There are billions of people on the planet on my side who do not believe in your particular Christian sect. Seems like the jury of impartial peers has spoken.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

But billions of people would also disagree with you about your Atheism, right?

Anonymous said...

Which kind of atheism? That is my point here. Atheism is simply non-belief so they agree with this around the world except when it comes to their own religious faith.

Rhacodactylus said...

It's that tired old saying "Theists and Atheists only differ in the number of religions they think are bullshit by one."

Say what you will about Atheism, but it is very much not another faith.

Rob R said...

reposted for editing


Once again, the judge metaphor isn't that great. The judge is sworn to uphold the law. He has a perspective and he is trying to determine who is on the side, who is an insider to that perspective.

The lawyers are not to be outsider's to their own position. It is their place to assert a position and convince the judge that their position is inside the bounds of the law and their oponent is the outsider. If your lawer for the defense team decides to practice the OTF instead of defending your side to the best of his ability, you should sue him when you lose your case). Imagine if a defense lawyer decided that he wasn't going to defend you if he couldn't convince his own internal skeptic of your innocence that you are indeed innocent (or in good legal standing, not that civil court shouldn't also provide worthy analogies.) Yes, judges and lawyers can have conflicts of interest. That is a far far cry from saying that they can't have many legitimate interests (biases).

Perhaps some Muslims consider non-muslims to be atheists. I've never heard of such a thing.

As for Hindu's, if we are talking about Bakti Yoga, some of them consider Christianity to be a glowing example.

Once again, we have someone who promotes atheism by asserting a thought pattern that was established during Christian faith. But that pattern of thought, exclusivism, the idea that only the differences matter and none of the common ground is at work here. It's not like the other extreme of pluralism, of where only the similarities matter but none of the difference matter is the only other option. From Paul to multitudes of missionaries, while we are promoting the gospel, we can and have appreciated the common ground even citing that as evidence of God's grace and love that has preceded the spread of the gospel.

Anonymous said...

Rob, one thing is that here in America the debate is usually billed as Christianity versus atheism.

That is quite simply not the only options.

In a Muslim country for example, the debate could be billed not as Christianity versus Islam (as it should) but atheism versus Islam.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

John,

How does the OTF sand up against mass conversions to Christianity from all geographical locations?

Phil

Anonymous said...

I don't think Atheism is simply non belief. Rocks aren't Atheists, nor are children. In the same way that billions of people disagree with Christianity or Islam, billions of people also disagree with Atheism. That they all (with Atheism) deny all-bar-one faiths (pace pluralism etc.) doesn't seem all that important: the same applies with Atheists agreeing with all the non-Christians that Christianity is false, agreeing with all the non-Muslims etc. etc., save when it comes to their Atheism.

Clare said...

I think the problem that some writers are having with John's OTF, is that they have a hard time imagining a worldview that lacks any God or Gods and does not hinge on the idea of faith.

Rob R said...

I'm not sure what you are getting at John. We could take your image further. Sure, Christianity and Islam have it's important disagreements. So there are many court cases. So in Loftus vs. the King, we may indeed see the defense call the Muslims as a witness to the defense, but the plaintiff could turn this around in the cross examination to a degree. And vice versa could be the case.

And the next day, the King vs. the prophet, it may be similar, it may be parallel, but the atheist witness may be cross examined in the court for that purpose among other witnesses.

The devil is in the details though. I really don't see how citing another area of disagreeements with another group in and of itself goes far. Islam is not purely the enemy when it comes to our disagreement with the atheism. We have important worthwhile agreements on many issues. These deserve to be acknowledged. And we have important disagreements. This deserves to be acknowledged.

Yet we may have significant agreements with many groups of atheists over against much of Islamic culture and of course that humanism that developed not in a vacuum but in a post Christian world.

Rhacodactylus said...

Phil, if you take the LDS guys out of the mix Christianity is losing members not gaining them, so by your logic Mormons have come up with the right answer, if increasing numbers is the sole decider.

Polemical, I'm sorry but you are mistaken, rocks are very much Atheists, in that they don't feel the need to posit a God, the same goes for very young children.

That is one of the main advantages to Atheism, you guys have put bad answers out there to be knocked down, whereas Atheists simply see no evidence for and therefore do not propose a God (there are various types of Atheist so I am speaking for myself only of course)

Anyone not proposing a sky-man is an Atheist.

Rob R said...

I would add that it isn't clear to me at all that atheism is necessarily the great competitor to orthodox Christianity even in the west. It seems to me that currently, religious pluralism is (as a position stating that all the great religions are roughly equal in a positive way). I suspect that such a position is even more prevelent even in secular academia than atheism.

ahswan said...

"What kind of atheism?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't atheism mean the belief that there is NO God? You can be a non-believer of Christianity and not be an atheist, if you believe in some other God.

LadyAtheist said...

Rob R, have you ever been to college in "secular academia?" There are all kinds of beliefs amongst professors and staff members in academia.

Rule #1 of debate and discussion: don't generalize!

Also, Muslims call non-believers in Islam "infidels," which literally means non-believers.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Rhacodactylus

Hmm, where is your evidence for that? Chrstianity is still the fastest growing religion in Africa and Asia, or does nothing exist outside the U.S.A.?

P

Anonymous said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Rhacodactylus

Hmm, where is your evidence for that? Chrstianity is still the fastest growing religion in Africa and Asia, or does nothing exist outside the U.S.A.?

Rev
I have not done the research, but I read some ware(I think it was Ehrman) that the reason Christianity is growing in Africa is because it is in populations that are poor and illiterate.

Rob R said...

Rob R, have you ever been to college in "secular academia?" There are all kinds of beliefs amongst professors and staff members in academia.

yes.

and yes, there are all sorts of beliefs amongst proffesors which perhaps the largest group of them hold as equal to the beliefs of other proffesors, ie religious pluralism.

David B Marshall said...

I am wondering, John, where you get your information. Who told you that a convert to Christianity in India or Saudi Arabia is considered an "atheist?"

"Infidel" or "kafir" does not seem to mean "atheist," BTW. It appears to refer to someone who "covers up" the (presumed) truth.

bob said...

ahswan said..."Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't atheism mean the belief that there is NO God?"

I prefer to define my atheism as the conclusion that, from my experience and observations, there probably isn't any god(s).

-or-

It's safe to say there are no gods, but I am open to attempts to persuade me otherwise.

Anonymous said...

David, Christianity still dominates the landscape in America so what most Christians do is have debates with atheists as if that is the only alternative. I'm happy to be in these debates, yes, but the truth is that before Christians should be able to get to me they need to win their debates with all of the other religions out there.

The fact that they consider atheism the alternative means they are myopic. And atheists let the dominant religion of their culture define who they are as well. So correct me if I'm wrong here but atheists in other countries dominated by other religions let them define who they are. Both sides are complicit. it's not that they all don't know any different because when asked they do. It's just that they act this way, as if the only other alternative to a particular religion is atheism.

trae norsworthy said...

John W. Loftus

None of this describes believers who examine their own faith.
I disagree. If a person can accurately reproduce a belief statement and can even respond to it, then they have demonstrated an understanding of that belief. They didn’t have to become an outsider to their own belief in order to accomplish that. furthermore, there are many, many Christians who do this.

The OTF demands the impartiality of agnostic
this is impossible as I have stated on my blog. You are asking something that no person is capable of doing.

The whole reason Christians object to the OTF is because they know their faith will not pass the OTF.
Faith plays no part in my objection to the otf whatsoever. Moreover, no person is free from faith. Therefore, no belief would pass the otf according to your statement.

Regardless, someone on a jury should at least be able to justify his decision afterward based on the skepticism of an outsider.
This is not how personal beliefs work.

One cannot punt to faith when judging the case before him like believers do an every juncture.
I have made several dozen blog posts and countless comments elsewhere and I have not appealed to faith even once that I am aware of.

So the choice becomes one between belief and non-belief. There are billions of people on the planet on my side who do not believe in your particular Christian sect. Seems like the jury of impartial peers has spoken.
By your reasoning, no one should believe in anything because billions of people reject every belief imaginable. That is not how belief works. Also, the choice isn’t between belief and non-belief because there is no non-belief. Everyone believes something. The question is why your belief is better.

trae norsworthy said...

Rhacodactylus said...

Say what you will about Atheism, but it is very much not another faith.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this because I have pointed out precisely how it is another belief multiple times.

trae norsworthy said...

John W. Loftus said...

the truth is that before Christians should be able to get to me they need to win their debates with all of the other religions out there.
I could not disagree more. The discussion is about theism and nontheism, not between all the world’s theists. if God doesn’t exist, discussion over. if God does exist, then nontheism is eliminated from the pool of live options and the relative merits of each theist solution can be analyzed.