What Would Christians Say if Their Faith Passed the Outsider Test (OTF)?

That Christians object to taking the Outsider Test for Faith only confirms it doesn't look good for their faith. For if Christianity passed the OTF with flying colors Christians would be arguing on behalf of it and pressing that case at every step along the way. You KNOW this is what they'd do. You know it. So by objecting to it they tacitly admit their faith doesn't pass the test. But it's worse that this, for their faith MUST pass the OTF. So now they're caught in a huge dilemma--a catch-22--either embrace the test even though doing so will cause them to abandon their faith (by their own admission), or object to the OTF even though their faith MUST pass that test.

46 comments:

Rhacodactylus said...

Of course, any faith will cherry pick the exercises that favor it and denounce the ones that rebuke it. That is what happens when you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

~Rhaco

Chuck said...

I think the folks who post here objecting to the OTF don't understand it. The test demands one become comfortable with being an individual subject to a contrarian position. The objections I hear seem to be heel dragging from that inevitable state. I can understand how Christians might feel uncomfortable of such an experience because one of the strongest benefits the faith provides is group-think and herd-protection. John, your experience (much like mine) put you in violent excommunication from your former faith group where the choice between comfort and discomfort was taken from you. This allows for a successful OTF but when a person still has the availability of their comfort group the incentive is for them to defend their faith because it provides the necessary group think and herd protection. It feels unsafe to be a mjority of one but if you can get past the discomfort it is very settling.

I'm am very grateful for the OTF.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

I have shown the problems with OTF as have others. Its not a real test. Until John answers the objects to it it just hot wind in a cave.

Phil.

@ Chuck,

If you can answer my objects to the OTF without resort to personal attacks I'd be willing to see what you can, that is if you can do it. Rhacodactylus could not.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say that I argue against the OTF, or that I object to the OTF: My complaint, for the most part, is that I don't think it's clearly developed enough to know how to take it, if you've taken it, and if you've 'passed' or 'failed' it (i.e., if you've taken it properly, whatever the result).

I've been toying with different ideas to avoid some of the problems people have raised about the way the OTF has been explained in various contexts. So far, the most promising 'soundbite' way of putting it that I've been able to come up with is this:

If you're a Christian, ask yourself what it would take for you to believe that Islam (or any other religion) is true. Now look at those requirements: Can your Christian faith meet them? If not, you should not be a Christian, and your faith has failed the OTF. If so (and if it really is so, and you're not fooling yourself), your faith has passed the OTF (for now), you are epistemically consistent, and you are warranted in your belief that Christianity is true (if, that is, your requirements themselves are tenable).

John, would you say that that's an accurate way of putting the OTF to someone?

Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishington said...

I think what you are describing, John, is similar to how many Christians (not all, but still a significant chunk) treat science:

If science is posing an answer that seems to remove their God from the picture, then science has nothing to say on the existence of God. But if there is some answer that could be interpreted as supporting the idea, then we atheist should listen to it and accept that god exists.

Morrison said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thesauros said...

Well, every believer was an outsider at one point. I had a whole note book full of questions that I needed answered. Obviously Christianity met criteria that other belief systems, including atheism couldn't meet.

Tom Rafferty said...

What is the big controversy about here. I was a devout Catholic until I was 55 years old. I was a skeptic in all areas except religion. I had cognitive dissonance that increased to the point where I had to "wipe the slate clean" (OTF?) and look at faith in the same light as I had been doing in all other areas of my life. I became an atheist as the result of this process.

All I can say is those theists that challenge the OTF are not "wiping the slate clean".

Rob R said...

Nothing passes a really really consistent OTF. I'm against the inconsistent application of the OTF when the skeptic stops at religion. Keep going on, and nothing is left but a useless radical skepticism.

Lazarus said...

Morrison

By those lights, why do we have the field of apologetics again?

bob said...

Eric - "... I don't think it's [the OTF] clearly developed enough to know how to take it,..."

Take a legal pad, divide it from top to bottom into four columns, in the first column, write some of the things you believe concerning your God - He is the creator of everything, he answers prayer, he heals the sick, he will take me to heaven when I die, etc.
In the second column, write the names of other faiths that believe their god does what you believe your god does.
In the third column, debunk what the other faiths believe.
In the forth column, using the same debunking method and, materials, apply them to your God, your faith, and see how they stack up.

bob said...

Or, Eric, just make up a religion that is very similar to Christianity. Even use the Christian model and just change the names, God to...Godmeister, Jesus to...Jimmy, the Holy Spirit to...Holly Sprite, and pretend that all the biblical miracles are attributed to these three. Then debunk them (the miracles), then use the same method and materials on your God(s).

bob said...

Thesauros - "Christianity met criteria that other belief systems, including atheism couldn't meet."

I wonder when atheism became a system of beliefs? What is the "system" and what are the "beliefs"?

Thesauros said...

I wonder when atheism became a system of beliefs? What is the "system" and what are the "beliefs"?"

Are you suggesting that beliefs, even one belief can exist in isolation from other areas of your life? For example, are you saying that -
"God does not exist" or
"Only the material world exists." exists in islolation from other beliefs?

If you are an atheist then you are forced to automatically develop a system beliefs regarding, for example, the origin of the universe. For example, even though we know from science that nothing natural existed until the singularlity, atheism / materialism forces you to come up with at least one more belief that nature / matter somehow brought itself into existence.

Or in the face of this you can tell yourself the "belief" that we just don't know. At the very least, if you are a materialist, you have to add the belief that a supernatural cause cannot be allowed.

If you are an atheist then you are forced to develop a system of beliefs regarding the source of value and worth and meaning for human beings. You have to add th belief that these things are not inherent or "put in" from a source outside of ourselves."

The denial that God exists does not and cannot exist in isolation from other areas of your life

Lazarus said...

Thesouros -

Tell us how your lack of belief in Allah being the Creator of the universe impacts on the other areas of your life.

Tom Rafferty said...

Thesouros -

I am an atheist. I do not know what happened before the Big Bang and neither to theists. Positing a supernatural creator of the universe verses accepting "we don't know" does not add to our knowledge.

In addition, since our universe developed from the very simple to the complex and quantum theory suggests that what was "before" the Big Bang was simple and unintelligent, it seems more rational to accept that natural, unintelligent agency is the base of reality.

brenda said...

Does atheism pass the outsider test? I don't think it does. You can't prove a negative so atheism is instant fail.

Eric said...
"If you're a Christian, ask yourself what it would take for you to believe that Islam (or any other religion) is true"

What evidence would you accept for the claim that god exists? What evidence would you accept that the claims of Christianity or other major religions are true?

bob said...

Thesauros - "Are you suggesting that beliefs, even one belief can exist in isolation from other areas of your life?"

No. I never thought about it.

"If you are an atheist then you are forced to automatically develop a system beliefs"

Automatically? Like my beliefs just started forming the second I stoped believing in a god, into some kind of self driven "system"?

"...regarding, for example, the origin of the universe."

Actually, it is possible to be an atheist and not be the slightest bit concerned about that.

"Or in the face of this you can tell yourself the "belief" that we just don't know."

That is not a belief. That is a simple conclusion. I don't know and neither do you.

"At the very least, if you are a materialist, you have to add the belief that a supernatural cause cannot be allowed."

That can be a conclusion based on observations. A supernatural cause can be allowed once the supernatural causer is exposed.

"If you are an atheist then you are forced to develop a system of beliefs regarding the source of value and worth and meaning for human beings."

OK, but I still don't see this "system" you keep referring to.

"You have to add th belief that these things are not inherent or "put in" from a source outside of ourselves."

I conclude, until more evidence is presented, that...what you said.

"The denial that God exists does not and cannot exist in isolation from other areas of your life"

As hard as you try, you can't make me say I "believe" as you say I "believe".
I conclude, based on my experience, that there is no good reason for me to accept the claim that YOUR god is real.
BUT, I am open to persuasion.

bob said...

Brenda - "What evidence would you accept for the claim that god exists?"

That's easy. All he would have to do is show up, once,

-or-

he could supernaturally change the way my brain works so that I no longer need evidence and am willing to accept as fact, wild claims that are based on ancient religious documents.

Thesauros said...

@ mindyourmind
Ok, it starts here

http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/09/because.html

and continues pretty much every day with a new post for the next thirty days.

Thanks for asking.


@ bob - I think what you've done my man is dump one belief for lack of evidence for another belief for which you have no more evidence than you had for the first belief.

I think there was something else going on that made denying the existence of God more useful.

bob said...

Thesauros - @ bob - "I think what you've done my man is dump one belief for lack of evidence for another belief for which you have no more evidence than you had for the first belief."

So, you are admitting that I did dump my Christian faith because I concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for me to continue believing?
Can you tell me what it is that I now "believe" without evidence? If not, shouldn't you retract your diagnosis?

"I think there was something else going on that made denying the existence of God more useful."

Again, if you can fill me in on what you think that "something else" might be.

-but-

Even if you were correct in these two statements, how does that bolster your case?

Brad Haggard said...

John, this is tiring when you link to the post right below this one. I think my faith has passed the OTF, then you move the goalposts and I object. I think that's as far as the argument can go.

You can raise the cognitive bias card against me, and I can do the same thing to you, so it's a push.

Chuck said...

Eric,

I like your proposition.

Phil, I don't think your are intelligent so I won't be wasting my time considering your arguments against the OTF.

Lazarus said...

Thesauros

So just another plug for your derivative blog. Nothing else. Nice. Lots of that floating around here on John's blog the last few days. Quite tedious, all these backyard apologetic heroes.

Lazarus said...

I paid The Rev Phil the compliment on his, um, blog, to the effect that his scribbles are some of atheism's most effective weapons, along with the Bible. I see my post is still awaiting moderation.

Anonymous said...

Phil has reading comprehension issues.

Thesauros said...

@ mindyourmind "So just another plug for your derivative blog."

You want me to retype everything that I've already written in another place?

Oh right. You asked a question to which you really didn't want an answer. There's plenty of that going on at this blog.

David B Marshall said...

All right, John, I've posted a response now to the chapter in Christian Delusion arguing your "Outsider Test."

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/09/outsider-test-for-faith-why-john-loftus.html

Note that in my last draft, I deleted most preliminary remarks of the "that's nonsense!" kind. Most of it is not, and your main point may in the end be useful, though I argue quite a bit of how you get there is wrong.

I'm sure there's more to say, and it might make an interesting diversion to put your argument in more philosophical context. But that's all I have time for this week.

Feel free to respond, or not, either here or there. If you respond there, of course I won't block any of your comments, except on the unlikely chance that your resort to very bad words!

Thesauros said...

@ bob - "Can you tell me what it is that I now "believe" without evidence?"

Yes, you see, there is this universe that needs to be accounted for and "nothing did it" doesn't suffice for an answer.

Again, nothing natural / material existed UNTIL the universe came into being. That means the cause could not have been natural / material yet THAT, sans evidence, is what atheists believe took place.

I see from your comments on my blog that agnostic more properly describes your position so I won't bother you with this line of thinking any more.

Anonymous said...

Thesauros said..."You want me to retype everything that I've already written in another place?"

Copy/paste?

Thesauros said...

Copy/paste?

It's THIRTY DAYS worth of posts!

If you're interested you can go to my blog. If you want to view that as a "Plug" for my blog - so be it.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

I love this about atheists...

When they cannot answer me or my posts they just start name calling. Do they realise how petty they look. He's the current crop of exmples...

From mindourmind...

I paid The Rev Phil the compliment on his, um, blog, to the effect that his scribbles are some of atheism's most effective weapons, along with the Bible

From chuck who does nothing else...

Phil, I don't think your are intelligent so I won't be wasting my time considering your arguments against the OTF.

From Ryan

Phil has reading comprehension issues.

So until we discover a way to pull hair over the internet this is what atheism has to offer the considered Christian?

Hmmm powerful stuff.

P

Anonymous said...

@thesauros

Even accepting that “the universe came into being" (i.e. "began to exist") you assume that this universe constitutes the “beginning” of all natural/material existence. Why?

Anonymous said...

Phil; that's because when one poses an honest question to you, a question without low hanging fruit that you can snatch, one usually get gibberish in return.

Like I said on your blog, you have problems.

Anonymous said...

Phil said "So until we discover a way to pull hair over the internet..."

For example.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Ryan,

Thanks for your opinion, however please point out what you mean from my blog if you can. Otherwise I'll wait for your apology.

Phil.

Thesauros said...

"Even accepting that “the universe came into being" (i.e. "began to exist") you assume that this universe constitutes the “beginning” of all natural/material existence. Why?"

Evidence. Ours is the only universe for which we have ANY evidence.

Even though Dawkins says that he is sceptical of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence he says:
. There are an infinite number of universes.
. There is life, even as we speak on a billion other planets.
. Inanimate, inorganic gases evolved into life.

What was your question again? Oh yes. It doesn't matter whether this universe was the first or if there were a trillion universes previous to this one, the main question remains the same. How did matter for the first universe come to be? What was the cause? And the answer remains the same.

Either matter is eternal or
the cause of matter is eternal.

Since the material infinite cannot and does not exist, then it's the cause of matter that's eternal.

This isn't difficult. All it takes is a willingness to go where the evidence leads.

On the other hand, going where the evidence leads is something that atheists are determined to avoid at all cost.

Tom Rafferty said...

Thesauros -

Please address my post today at 12:03pm

Thanks.

Thesauros said...

In addition, since our universe developed from the very simple to the complex and quantum theory suggests that what was "before" the Big Bang was simple and unintelligent, it seems more rational to accept that natural, unintelligent agency is the base of reality."

There wasn't any until Big Bang!
Not matter
Not space
Not time
Not energy
Nothing material existed.

As far as matter is concerned, there was no before.

Quantum theory has nothing to do with the coming into being since everything came from nothing. QM does not take place vis a vis nothing.

Tom Rafferty said...

Thesauros -

Just how do you know what was "before" the Big Bang? What evidence do you have that it was non-material?

Thesauros said...

"Just how do you know what was "before" the Big Bang? What evidence do you have that it was non-material?"

Because of science we know that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Because of science we know that there aren't any known exceptions.

Because of science we know that nothing - NOTHING - existed until the singularlity.

Because of science we know that space / time / matter / energy came into existence at the singularity.

Because of science we know that the laws of physics; the constants and quantities that govern the universe were put into place at Planck time.

They didn't evolve or "settle in." Every single one of them was in place at 10^-43 seconds.

This is science - not opinion.

Because we know these things, Tom, we can also know two other things:

1) We don't know exactly what existed before Big Bang but we DO know what DIDN'T exist - matter - no matter of any kind. Nothing material existed prior to Big Bang.

Here comes the answer to the second part of your question

2) If nothing material existed until the singularity then the cause of matter (because whatever begins to exist has a cause), then the cause of matter must have been immaterial, on the order of a mind or ?

Now think about what kind of mind / intelligence it would take to bring into existence this universe.

This is not JUST any universe. This is a mathematically precise, life supporting universe. There is no reason whatsoever that ANY universe should exist but to have a mathematically precise, a life supporting universe requires a Cause that is practially beyond our imagination.

As I said, we don't know exactly what was before Big Bang but we do know what wasn't - matter / energy / space / time.

We know THAT!

If you're actually interested in the numbers behind what I'm saying go to

http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-im-not-atheist.html

If not - have a good life.

Tom Rafferty said...

"Nothing material existed until the Singularity.

That means the cause of the universe had to be something outside of matter, time, etc. etc. etc."

Thesauros, A great deal of verbage beginning from an unsupported assertion.

Isfs said...

That's a non-sequitur, John.

1. Christians object to taking the OTF.
2. Christianity fares poorly in the OTF.

2 does not follow from 1.

In fact, I would say it's highlighted as a non-sequitur precisely because you feel the need to use so much emotive and opinionated language to assert its truth (and that of its contrapositive). "Would be arguing." "You KNOW this is what they'd do." "You know it." Really?

I would like to propose the Insider Test for Behaviour. This means that before you assert how a person of another belief system would act in a given scenario, you consider the scenario according to their belief system (and that as a whole, not a cherry-picked and out-of-context command or doctrine), and what behaviour would logically follow from that system.

You have suggested that if Christianity passed the OTF, Christians would be falling all over themselves to say so, rather than objecting. However, that only really makes sense under a view that Christians are manipulative and opportunistic and care about little else than scoring points on your 'test'. However, in the Christian worldview, truth and honesty are highly prized, and valued more than point-scoring, so if there is a perceived flaw in the test, an objection will still be made. What's more, if, in line with your hypothesis, Christianity fared well on the OTF, and a Christian believed this, they would feel little need to point it out loudly, as it would be fairly readily observable. They need only quietly draw attention to the facts.

Isfs said...

I, as a Christian, believe the faith indeed does well on the test (e.g. consider the quality of the biblical manuscripts compared to that of other religions' manuscripts), but I also have misgivings about the test. Most particularly, where is 'outside'? You cannot step out of one worldview without stepping into another to give basis to your judgements. I don't reckon the natural aspects of Christianity look too bad from a naturalistic worldview, and the supernatural claims are indeed problematic and lead to quite firm "don't know" answers. But why should the naturalistic view be the one from which I judge? Why not another? I reckon atheism looks pretty bleak from the Christian worldview.

I'd like to ask you this. If you were to step out of the naturalistic worldview to critique your atheism, which worldview would you step into and why?

Anonymous said...

Ben I would be an agnostic, that's the default position.

Thanks for dropping by.

Anonymous said...

@thesauros


You: “Either matter is eternal, or the cause of matter is eternal.” You come close to the crux, but apparently have a problem with consistent language and logical rigor.

First, we weren’t discussing “matter.” As you surely know, matter can be converted to energy, and vice-versa, so no, “matter” isn’t eternal. Rather, the issue is whether “material existence” -- or better, “natural existence,” as opposed to “supernatural existence” -- is eternal.

However, even when you write more properly of “material existence,” you simply assume your conclusion: “[T]he material infinite cannot and does not exist.”

Wow. And you base this proclamation on…what, exactly? That’s all it is, a totally unfounded, unilateral proclamation. “Material existence can’t be eternal. Because.” (Or, I suspect, “because Craig says so.”)

Ah, but you have “evidence.”

You: “Ours is the only universe for which we have any evidence.” You’ll get no dispute from me there: Our universe is the only ANYTHING of which we have any evidence. But you are intent on completely missing the significance of this fact: What kind of universe is it?

Wait for it, wait for it…

Oh, that’s right. A natural, material universe. The evidence is that all of our common experiences, past or present, are natural and material. Further, the evidence is that all the causes of everything in our natural, material universe have been, in turn, natural and material. And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that everything the natural, material universe of this moment will give rise to in the next moment will, in turn, be natural and material.

In short, suggesting naturalists have no evidence is patently ridiculous.

And because you have no evidence at all, you and other supernaturalists must convince yourselves that this overwhelming – indeed, totality of evidence that existence is purely material actually constitutes “evidence” against a material, natural explanation of the universe.

Bizarre.

I see that you, Tyro and others have taken up this discussion on another thread, so this will be my last post here.