tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post57040736489470674..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Answering Dr. Reppert's Criticisms of The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31743250939255055392009-04-01T08:14:00.000-04:002009-04-01T08:14:00.000-04:00On Vic's latest comment read my response here.On Vic's latest comment <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=1474501979458633927" REL="nofollow">read my response here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21716397005359490672009-03-31T21:36:00.000-04:002009-03-31T21:36:00.000-04:00Victor wrote: If this is a reason to reject the ma...Victor wrote: If this is a reason to reject the maxim of my undergraduate philosophy teacher (an atheist) "You ought to believe what you already believe, unless you have evidence that what you believe is not true," then I wouldn't endorse that kind of skepticism.<BR/><BR/>Scott replied: The problem with applying this maxim to a particular religious belief is the means in which you've acquired that belief and the inability to provide clear evidence that your belief is not true. It's as if you've thrown up your hands and claimed you're stuck with your belief since there is no other method in which you could attempt to identify whether it is factual or not. <BR/><BR/>VR: No. I have considered evidence for and against theism, and for and against Christianity. I just don't know if real neutrality is possible. <BR/><BR/>I think naturalism is self-refuting because it is inconsistent with the fact that human beings perceive logical relationship and act on that basis. If they were purely physical systems in a purely physical world, this would not be possible. We could not literally do mathematics, which is the very foundations of the science on which naturalism rests its case. If naturalism is true, then there are no scientists, and there is no scientific method, and we're all epistemically screwed. <BR/><BR/>In fact it's a little amazing to me that someone could accept the outsider test for faith and not accept the argument from reason against naturalism. The OTF says that if our religious views have sociological causes, they aren't rational, which suggests to me that atheists must have purely rational causes for their beliefs. But if naturalism is true, then everyone has natural, physical causes for all beliefs, and this got to be ten times more damaging than sociological causes. If naturalism is true, then there is no real mental causation, just physical causation that mimics mental effects. <BR/><BR/>I think that Christian theism has some problems in the area of the problem of evil, but these are not worse problems than naturalists have in explaining consciousness, for example. Atheists argue that if theism is true, then there would be no suffering, but if naturalistic atheism is true, there can only be pain behavior, not real pain, because pain is a subjective qualia that has no place in the naturalistic world of objective physical states. Hence, if naturalistic atheism is true, then there should be no suffering either. <BR/><BR/>I am amazed at how monotheism could have taken hold of the mind of the people of Israel, after a long struggle with paganism, and that the little nation of Judah could have escaped dispersion from the Assyrians, which would have destroyed that nation's identity permanently. To the ancient mind, it was a lot easier to be a polytheist than to be a monotheist. How could this have been reversed in an tiny and otherwise nondescript country like Israel, when it did not happen anywhere else? Not in Greece, not in Egypt, not in Babylonia, and not in Rome. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to see an account of the beginnings of Christianity that is any better than the one that Christians offer. If there were not miracles, then how do you get a bunch of people firmly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and getting in the faces of the Jewish and Roman establishment to spread that belief? What happened to these people? How could Jews start accepting an incarnate deity? How could they change the Sabbath, and not try to apply the Jewish Law to Gentile converts? Mass hallucinations, and then their biggest persecutor, Saul of Tarsus gets one? Just a coincidence? <BR/><BR/>How do you explain the intimate, detailed familiarity that Luke shows with the Mediterranean world if he was never a companion of Paul and didn't see what he wrote about? I don't even know how many people are on the city council of the nearby cities of Avondale or Glendale here in the Phoenix area. But Luke provides this kind of detail, and the archaeology backs him up time after time. No other religion has the kind of archaeological support that Christianity does. Have they found that battleground in Palmyra, New York, where the book of Mormon says a huge battle took place? Thought not. Is there a good DNA match between Jews and American Indians? You mean they look more like Orientals? Who witnessed Muhammad reciting and transmitting the Qu'ran? <BR/><BR/>I even think that there are present-day miracles that provide evidence for God. We had some discussion of that on Dangerous Idea as well. <BR/><BR/>Now if you say "Anything but the Supernatural" this may all seem irrational to you. But maybe some naturalists need to take the Outsider Test and see how things look from the perspective that miracles are possible. I could argue that you have been brainwashed by the scientific establishment to rules these possiblities out. But I won't. <BR/><BR/>The world just makes more sense from the perspective of Christian theism than it does from any other perspective.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2087374307113198482009-03-29T15:27:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:27:00.000-04:00Victor wrote: If this is a reason to reject the ma...Victor wrote:<B> If this is a reason to reject the maxim of my undergraduate philosophy teacher (an atheist) "You ought to believe what you already believe, unless you have evidence that what you believe is not true," then I wouldn't endorse that kind of skepticism.</B><BR/><BR/>The problem with applying this maxim to a particular religious belief is the means in which you've acquired that belief and the inability to provide clear evidence that your belief is not true. It's as if you've thrown up your hands and claimed you're stuck with your belief since there is no other method in which you could attempt to identify whether it is factual or not. <BR/><BR/>But, before deciding to stick with a particular religion because, of out all you've encountered it was the first which "resonated" with you, doesn't it seem prudent to consider at all of the factors that caused this particular religion to be encountered first? <BR/><BR/>The chronological order of presentation in one's formative years, geographical location and popularity in one's local culture all seem to be strong factors that would influence which religion would first be encountered.<BR/><BR/>For the most part, Christianity has already gone though it's enlightenment period. When Islam goes though such a similar period in the future, perhaps you would have found it more appealing had you been born 50-100 years later? The same question could be asked if it was Islam, instead of Christianly, that first became enlightened. <BR/><BR/>Once acquired, it's not clear what would entail having positive "evidence that what you believe is not true" due to they way God is defined. Furthermore, if your metric of what is reasonable for God to do, say and reveal to human beings is defined by what your religion deems reasonable, then it appears that what you consider reasonable in the case of one religion, but not another, is determined by the religion "you already believe." <BR/><BR/><B>Are we being asked to accept a set of evidence against all religious beliefs?</B><BR/><BR/>Given that other religions us the same technique to determine your religion is "unreasonable", it seems to bring into question our ability to determine the nature of God and how we interpret our experiences as revelation. <BR/><BR/>John has brought up these issues before. <BR/><BR/>If, in maters of importance - such as our very eternal salvation - we cannot come to a reasonable agreement on what God wants or demands from us, then how can we expect to know anything specific about God's nature?<BR/><BR/>If we must depend on faith to define God's nature, then why have faith in a God that judges our choices based on incomplete information? Why have faith in a God that eternally exiles us from his presence without a chance to learn from such an exile? Why have faith in a God who found the smell of burnt offerings "pleasing" or demanded the violent death of a God-Man, before he would forgive us of our own nature, which he himself supposedly created?<BR/><BR/>Sure, in the last thousand years, elaborate theologies have been created to attempt to make sense of these events, but why should this be necessary?<BR/><BR/>Ehrman has made a strong case that the very the nature of the Abrahamic God's and the supernatural balance of power has evolved as a means to explain suffering and events we simply could not understand at the time. Why should we, in this day and age, accept this "explanation" as a valid definition of God's nature? <BR/><BR/>Because it part of our tradition or culture? Because we grew up with it or it was he first religion we encountered that "made sense" to us at the time?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't know if a God-like being or power exists or not. However, it seems highly unlikely that it fits any of the descriptions we've created or that he is an active agent in our day to day lives. In the spirt of Flews invisible gardner, how does a gardner who's nature we cannot determine differ from an imaginary gardner or no gardner at all?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36443317580026786272009-03-29T15:14:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:14:00.000-04:00Another approach to this issue, sort of Lord of th...Another approach to this issue, sort of Lord of the Flies variation:<BR/><BR/>Imagine some children raised in some sealed environment--perhaps on a space ship--and no mention was made of ANY religion, western or eastern, but they were given a proper education (granting the difficulty of not mentioning any religion). So they have by 18 or so well-developed quantitative, analytical and qualitative skills. There are no religious people on the craft (perhaps it's all bots), and no attempts to proselytize. <BR/><BR/>Then they are exposed to a history of religions course. Which religion do they choose, if any? Given that they are rational human beings, they would have to weigh each according to rational and scientific principles. Ergo, they would most likely not choose to follow any religion which was not in accord with those principles. <BR/><BR/>That was sort of the point of the secularist Founding Fathers: there's no way to assess religions except by Reason, and when one does that, they all seem to have irrational and supernatural elements.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47291866950771076162009-03-29T15:05:00.000-04:002009-03-29T15:05:00.000-04:00"but in its normal, everyday usage "dubious" has a..."but in its normal, everyday usage "dubious" has a very negative connotation that basically says that if something is dubious, then it is untrue."<BR/><BR/>Anthony, dubious means doubtful, not untrue! I was using the word in accordance with the definition you'll find in any dictionary. And the only people who use 'dubious' to mean 'untrue' are those who don't know what 'dubious' means! I'm sorry, but this criticism of yours holds no water whatsoever. Now, to say that something is dubious may indeed have a negative connotation, since it calls into question its truth; however, to call the truth of something into question is to be skeptical of its truth, not to say it's untrue!<BR/><BR/>"All I'm trying to get at is that the OTF does not by the nature of the test, assume that all religious faiths are necessarily false."<BR/><BR/>I agree with you entirely, and have never said anything to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>"It asks you to treat them as suspect and to investigate them."<BR/><BR/> I think it goes beyond treating them as suspect. If we distinguish weak skepticism (a belief may be false), strong skepticism (a belief is probably false) and radical skepticism (we can never know what's true), the OTF is calling for a presumption of strong skepticism (note my quote above from John's book -- the outsider is to assume that his belief is probably false). However, to say that something is suspect to say that it's open to suspicion (note the same root); this is consistent with weak skepticism. The OTF, however, calls for strong skepticism, according to John.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77773931857169457622009-03-29T14:35:00.000-04:002009-03-29T14:35:00.000-04:00Eric,I have noticed from your various posts that y...Eric,<BR/><BR/>I have noticed from your various posts that you like to major on minute details and emphasize very specific meanings. Okay, I will grant that the word "dubious" can be understood to mean "suspect", but in its normal, everyday usage "dubious" has a very negative connotation that basically says that if something is dubious, then it is untrue. Now, if you want to use the word "dubious" with a very specific meaning then you should indicate that is how you are using it.<BR/><BR/>I do understand John's point that one should assume their culturally inherited faith is "probably false" and hence should undertake the OTF.<BR/><BR/>All I'm trying to get at is that the OTF does not by the nature of the test, assume that all religious faiths are necessarily false. It asks you to treat them as suspect and to investigate them.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6742799306607921252009-03-29T13:49:00.000-04:002009-03-29T13:49:00.000-04:00"Come now Eric, no one said that simply because re..."Come now Eric, no one said that simply because religious faiths have such dependencies (sociological, anthropological, and psychological) does not automatically render them dubious. It should however render them suspect which is the purpose of them test."<BR/><BR/>Let me make one thing clear from the start: this is not a response to John; it's a response to Anthony!<BR/><BR/>First, let's deal with my claim about dependency.<BR/><BR/>The following quote is from, "Why I became an Atheist" (Page 67Chapter Four):<BR/><BR/>"The **basis for the outsider test** challenge can be found in a statement by John Hicks: "[I]t is evident that in some ninety-nine percent of the cases **the religion which an individual professes and to which he or she adheres ***depends*** upon the accidents of birth**."<BR/><BR/>Here's another that refers specifically to the religious dependency thesis (from page 69):<BR/><BR/>"The outsider test is based on the religious diversity thesis, which leads us to the *religious dependency thesis*, ***which in turn leads*** to the *presumption of skepticism*."<BR/><BR/>Note, it is the religious dependency thesis which leads to the presumption of skepticism, i.e. the outsider test.<BR/><BR/>What kind of skepticism does the test require? First, let's see the definition of the term I used (and which you objected to): 'dubious.'<BR/><BR/>du·bi·ous <BR/>Function: adjective <BR/>Etymology: Latin dubius, from dubare to vacillate; akin to Latin duo two — more at two <BR/>Date: 1548 <BR/>1: giving rise to uncertainty: as a: of doubtful promise or outcome b: questionable or suspect as to true nature or quality <BR/>2: unsettled in opinion : doubtful <BR/>synonyms see doubtful<BR/><BR/>Now, let's see if this jibes with what John says about the nature of the skepticism the outsider test requires:<BR/><BR/>Here's a quote from page 67:<BR/><BR/>"She [an outsider] would have to assume that her culturally inherited religious faith is **probably false**."<BR/><BR/>To say that we should be skeptical of something, or that it is *probably false*, is to say that it is dubious (see definition above), not merely suspect.<BR/><BR/>(Okay, here's one thing for John, since it undercuts one of his claims about my understanding of the outsider test.)<BR/><BR/>See, John? I do demonstrably understand at least some things about the outsider test better than one of your team members! <BR/><BR/>(BTW, Anthony, that is not meant, in any way, as an insult; there are plenty of things I'm quite confident that you understand far better than I do. I'm just stating a fact about our respective understanding of this aspect of the outsider test to undercut a claim John had made earlier about my understanding of it.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5483514280939688222009-03-29T13:18:00.000-04:002009-03-29T13:18:00.000-04:00Eric: I'm assuming that you're asking theists to q...Eric: <I>I'm assuming that you're asking theists to question their beliefs because the religious dependency thesis renders them dubious, right?</I><BR/><BR/>Come now Eric, no one said that simply because religious faiths have such dependencies (sociological, anthropological, and psychological) does not automatically render them dubious. It should however render them suspect which is the purpose of them test.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87611937238300483492009-03-29T10:04:00.000-04:002009-03-29T10:04:00.000-04:00The OTF is a good thing, though I doubt the OTF in...The OTF is a good thing, though I doubt the OTF in itself will cause biblethumpers (or koranthumpers) to examine their beliefs and their church from a skeptical POV, nor will it have much impact on theologians or religious "philosophers". There may be too much at stake for doubts, whether of say the Resurrection, or theology business itself. <BR/><BR/>A Doc Reppert's meal ticket depends on Christendom, and Plantingas, the supposed inerrancy of scripture, and his favorite Rapture chants from the Book of Rev.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14343750539779085962009-03-29T08:02:00.000-04:002009-03-29T08:02:00.000-04:00I noticed Bauckhams "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" m...I noticed Bauckhams "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" mentioned earlier on this post. There is an excellent chapter by chapter critique of this book over at vridar.wordpress.com. Neil Godfrey very effectively dismantles this books premise.kilo papahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112057471953902453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57866078965565230212009-03-28T22:53:00.000-04:002009-03-28T22:53:00.000-04:00Hey John,No problem. Glad you could use it.Hey John,<BR/><BR/>No problem. Glad you could use it.Agnosis00https://www.blogger.com/profile/14811257507910103970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64395953960183646252009-03-28T21:23:00.000-04:002009-03-28T21:23:00.000-04:00Thanks Agnosis, I'll read that. It looks good.Thanks Agnosis, I'll read that. It looks good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76276540932569875062009-03-28T20:50:00.000-04:002009-03-28T20:50:00.000-04:00For those who are interested, here is an example o...For those who are interested, here is an example of someone applying the OTF in the Spectator: <A HREF="http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3194231/studying-islam-has-made-me-an-atheist.thtml" REL="nofollow">"Studying Islam Has Made Me An Atheist."</A>Agnosis00https://www.blogger.com/profile/14811257507910103970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20479008719422514652009-03-28T15:36:00.000-04:002009-03-28T15:36:00.000-04:00BTW, John, there is a good thread about the OTF ov...BTW, John, there is a good thread about the OTF over on Daniel Florien's blog, Unreasonable Faith.openlyatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79047418819127375552009-03-28T15:30:00.000-04:002009-03-28T15:30:00.000-04:00I wonder which is true?:A) The OTF is fundamentall...I wonder which is true?:<BR/><BR/>A) The OTF is fundamentally flawed, and the Christians who took the test were not as smart as the Christians who saw the test was un-take-able.<BR/><BR/>B) The OTF is fine, and the Christians who saw the test as un-take-able are not as smart as the Christians who took the test.<BR/><BR/>C) They're all full of bologna.<BR/><BR/>Mmmm... bologna. :)_openlyatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42817498964074460482009-03-28T14:04:00.000-04:002009-03-28T14:04:00.000-04:00I said - "I have never personally met a Christian ...I said - "I have never personally met a Christian who became a Christian based on a careful study of the facts."<BR/><BR/>VR asked - "What kind of evidence would it take to convince you that someone's conversion was based on evidence?"<BR/><BR/>Please don't misunderstand me. I did not say that no one ever converts based on facts. I said I have never personally met one who did. Again, I have met a few who claimed they converted based on facts, but their words exposed the fact that it was the emotional experience they had when they "realized" that they were lost in their sins and that Jesus died in their place on the cross. My own conversion at 17 was an emotional experience. No facts was ever presented to me. I needed none. I became convinced because of the emotional appeals of those who were witnessing to me. Then, over the next 25 years that I spent as bible believer, every person whom I witnessed accepting Jesus as their savior, did so with out any evidence being presented. And the experience left them, and those of us around them, emotional.<BR/><BR/>I guess my point is this, since most people (the vast majority who convert) become Christians without the need of any evidence, why do apologists spend so much effort honing their skills, skills that will be spent on the very few who will not accept the bible message without some kind of convincing evidence?bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06904304335819109123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45847708633912908852009-03-28T12:02:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:02:00.000-04:00Eric, what follows if all of our beliefs are socio...Eric, what follows if all of our beliefs are sociologically dependent? What then? Your faith loses and agnosticism wins, which I claim is the default position.<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, remember me speaking of W.V.O. Quine's web of beliefs earlier? There are indeed facts which are not dependent on sociological, anthropological, and psychological factors. Religious faith is in a different category altogether than scientific thinking. If you want to question modus ponens, or my sense of sight, or a scientific experiment because there are minimal sociological factors involved, then go ahead. But I won't join you with the same kind of skepticism as I would religious faiths. <BR/><BR/>There is indeed an outside perspective and I am it! Skepticism is not a religion, nor is agnosticism, nor is atheism. You are an atheist with regard to the other religions you reject, and a skeptic. So am I. I just reject one more religious faith than you do for the same reasons and with the same skepticism you reject the others. Period.<BR/><BR/>Take, for instance, an outsider perspective on the existence of Elves and transfer that same skepticism toward incarnational Trinitarian penal substitutionary resurrection faith and see what you get, okay? What is the outsider perspective when coming to test the existence of Elves? It's skepticism. It’s Hume's standards for assessing a miraculous claim. It's methodological naturalism. That best represents the skepticism from the outside and these things are very well defended as not being sociologically dependent, but rather scientifically dependent. The fact that some cultures are not scientifically literate who may not accept science means nothing and cannot be used to say that science is sociologically dependent in any way related to the sociologically dependency of religious or extraordinary claims. <BR/><BR/>I wish I had the words to convince you, but it seems I don't. Of course, I could never convince my teenage daughter of some things either. Nor should I expect to convince a brainwashed person. What I argue for is non-controversial and obvious. The outsider perspective is not a vacuous black slate perspective. It’s the same perspective you have when testing other religious faiths, and you do that with Quine, Hume, and methodological naturalism.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you think atheism is a worldview. NOT AT ALL. But even if so I’m not arguing for atheism anyway. I’m arguing for skepticism as an outsider with the same standards you use…..<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh forget it. I’ve said all I want to say to you on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56619409759855552402009-03-28T11:31:00.000-04:002009-03-28T11:31:00.000-04:00John, my problem isn't with some vague notion that...John, my problem isn't with some vague notion that we should all be skeptical of our beliefs -- of course I'm in general agreement with that (and I particularly like the way Victor put it) -- *but with your specific argument for the OTF*. Let me put my argument in the form of a series of 'assumptions' that I'll formulate as questions to you (none of this is meant to be disrespectful in any way; I'm just trying to be thorough).<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming we agree that you have an argument for the OTF, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming we agree that your argument attempts to justify the need for the OTF, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that your argument makes that attempt at justification by appealing to the religious dependency thesis, which comprises the "sociological (or demographic) data, anthropological data, and psychological data," right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that you're asking theists to question their beliefs because the religious dependency thesis renders them dubious, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that any belief or set of beliefs that are similarly dependent on the sociological, anthropological and psychological factors you refer to must be, by parity of reasoning, dubious as well, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that you'd agree that it's absurd to propose that one test a dubious belief (or set of beliefs) with a belief (or set of beliefs) that are just as, or almost as dubious as the belief(s) he's testing, right? <BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that if it it is indeed absurd to test beliefs in this way, then the OTF cannot be undertaken with premises that are sociologically dependent in such a way that they are, by parity of reasoning, just as or almost as dubious as the beliefs they're being used to evaluate, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that if the OTF cannot be undertaken with such premises, for the reasons I mentioned above, then it must be undertaken with premises that are not sociologically dependent in such a way as to render them as dubious or almost as dubious as the beliefs they're being used to evaluate, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that since you are claiming that the OTF can be undertaken, that therefore such premises must exist, and that you must have some idea of what they are, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm assuming that if such premises exist, they can be justified without appeals to premises that are sociologically dependent in such a way as to render them as dubious or almost as dubious as the beliefs they are being used to evaluate (and so on for premises used to justify the justificatory premises themselves, and so on), right?<BR/><BR/>Finally, I'm assuming that if you cannot provide such premises and justify them without appealing (anywhere down the chain of justification) to premises that are sociologically dependent in such a way as to render them as or almost as dubious as the premises they're being used to evaluate, then either they don't exist, and the OTF is self referentially inconsistent, or that you haven't yet worked the OTF out as completely as its logic demands, right?<BR/><BR/>Again, my problem is with your argument -- period. It's not with skepticism, it's not with the idea that I should question my beliefs, etc. I'm making a technical point about your argument. I know that you want your arguments to be as solid as possible, so you should welcome challenging, detailed criticisms like this. If you can show me that I've gone wrong, or if my criticism helps you either to shore up some part of your argument that was not as tight as it should've been, or helps you to formulate responses to new kinds of objections, then we're helping each other by engaging the sort of reasoning and dialogue that promotes the search for truth, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3644921312198317562009-03-28T10:31:00.000-04:002009-03-28T10:31:00.000-04:00Eric, you are really kicking up a lot of dust here...Eric, you are really kicking up a lot of dust here. Even Vic admits there is nothing wrong with the OTF (with nuances). What is your problem?<BR/><BR/>You wrote...<I>What you must show is that they reached their conclusion by way of premises that are not themselves sociologically dependent. Again, that's what the OTF demands if you follow the logic of the argument for it through to the end, and that's what no one has yet been able to provide. Again, I'm not arguing that there are no such premises; I'm arguing that the logic of the OTF demands them, and that until you can provide them, or at least show that they're possible, the OTF is at best incomplete, and at worst self referentially inconsistent (by requiring a standard it cannot itself meet).</I><BR/><BR/>Listen Eric. There are at least three legs supporting the OTF: sociological (or demographic) data, anthropological data, and psychological data. They all converge to provide very strong evidence that when it comes to religious faith believers adopt and defend what they were raised with. That's YOU!<BR/><BR/>I am not, I repeat, I am not asking for a neutral vantage point when it comes to examining religious faith, as sort of a blank slate type of condition. I don't think such a position is possible, as I admit. <B>Based upon these three legs I'm asking you to switch your assumptions, to switch your glasses, to switch your very eyes from a gullible believer to a skeptic, and/or an agnostic when it comes to religious questions.</B> I have already dealt with ethical and political and scientific beliefs above.<BR/><BR/>Based on the three legs I think you should switch your presuppositions. You should be skeptical as an "outsider" to the very faith you are defending with the same type of skepticism you use to examine the religious faiths of others you reject.<BR/><BR/>You need to deal with what I am actually saying, and while misunderstandings abound between us on both sides, the process of this discussion helps to clarify our respective positions. From my position you simply do not have a leg to stand on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11932451210249243802009-03-28T09:37:00.000-04:002009-03-28T09:37:00.000-04:00"Well, I admit I must have said something unclear ..."Well, I admit I must have said something unclear if two people inferred the same misunderstanding. Too bad *Christians* like to talk first and ask questions later. Come on, fellas, I never meant to imply that atheism CAN’T EVER be sociologically transmitted."<BR/><BR/>Too bad *you* (not *atheists*; just, in this instance, *you*) prefer to talk first, understand later (never?). Hello, I didn't misunderstand you -- heck, I went so far as to grant you, for the sake of argument, the *strongest possible reading* of your words in order to show that *even then* your argument fails. Here's what I wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Now, let's concede that atheism isn't intentionally and directly socially transmitted (this is dubious in itself, but I'll let it go for the sake of argument)."<BR/><BR/>You go on to say,<BR/><BR/>"I merely pointed out examples of atheism (and skepticism) arising indigenously."<BR/><BR/>Again, you did nothing of the sort. You have yet to show that atheism has ever arisen sans sociologically dependent premises. I granted it may arise without being socially transmitted, but that's not the issue, as I went to great pains to point out.<BR/><BR/>"I’m talking about an Outsider test, right? So it stands to reason I’m talking about dependence, and transmission, relative to an OUTSIDE position, not ones OWN, yes? I figured anyone would be able to see that. Why the hell would I be talking about ‘sociological transmission’ within a society, when we’re talking about something called the Outsider Test? Whatever. Let’s try and sweep up another mess"<BR/><BR/>Not so fast -- the mess is your own, and you've yet to sweep it up, or even recognize that it is indeed a mess. Please, if you're "talking about dependence, and transmission, relative to an OUTSIDE position," which no one has ever said you're not, then please, *please* elucidate the premises that the outside position you're referring to comprises. That's all I've asked for, and that's what you've consistently failed to deliver. Again, you keep on claiming that such a position is possible, but you've yet to provide either an argument or an iota of evidence to support it. Let's see more arguments and evidence, and fewer assertions, eh?<BR/><BR/>"this doesn’t address whether Eric *means* that his belief [about the existence of relephrants] follows from a host of other beliefs from INSIDE or from OUTSIDE his society/religion/paradigm/culture/family/whatever."<BR/> <BR/>What? Of course it does. My whole point was -- as I made abundantly clear -- that such a belief *is* sociologically dependent, even if it's not socially transmitted. If it's sociologically dependent, it follows from 'inside' beliefs. If you can show me the 'outside' beliefs from which I could derive such a conclusion, then you'll be delivering what I've consistently been asking for, and what you've been consistently claiming exists, yet what you've been consistently failing to provide.<BR/><BR/>"1. If Eric concluded X on his own, then X is Sociologically Independent of an outside influence, *not, of course, independent of his own culture*, and not Socially Transmitted from Outside"<BR/><BR/>This is far too vague to make any sense of. I take you to be saying that I've concluded that P on my own, i.e. it hasn't been directly transmitted to me, but that it's also not arrived at independently of my culture, and thus isn't sociologically independent. Is that right? (Not that it matters much; these distinctions don't even touch upon the issue, as I'll make clear below, but I'll play, for the moment.)<BR/><BR/>"2. If Eric arrived at X because of a-relephant prostelytizers, then X is Sociologically Dependent on an outside influence and likewise Socially Transmitted from Outside"<BR/><BR/>Agreed.<BR/><BR/>"3. If people in different places, at different times, all conclude independently that there are no relephants, then X is Sociologically Independent of an outside influence relative to each person and need not be Socially Transmitted from an outside to an inside"<BR/><BR/>Okay, so *how* is this belief arrived at independently? That's the question I've been asking! You're wasting your time providing irrelevant distinctions instead of explaining what's at issue.<BR/><BR/>"4. If X can be Socially Transmitted from culture to culture, but still appear independently, then that means it is still sometimes Sociologically Independent of an outside influence"<BR/><BR/>Again, *how* is it arrived at independently? And how can you keep missing the fact that it is precisely this 'how' that is at issue?<BR/><BR/>"5. If X can be Socially Transmitted from culture to culture, and can never appear spontaneously, then that means it is always Sociologically Dependent of an outside influence"<BR/><BR/>I don't know what to make of this. First, the grammar is confusing. But more importantly, if something can be socially transmitted, but can never appear spontaneously, then how could it ever be arrived at in the first place? Is there an eternal race of beings that has always known that P? <BR/><BR/>"Correction: its about what you declare the OTF to demand... You made them up, you declare they are demanded by the test. You want me to look for them cuz you can’t, or perhaps they aren’t there."<BR/><BR/>As John would say -- sheesh! I haven't 'made them up,' or 'declared' the OTF needs them: I've provided an **argument** that the OTF requires them, an argument that you've yet to refute -- you haven't shown me that a single premise in my argument is false; you haven't shown me that my reasoning is fallacious; and you haven't shown me that there are any problems with my terms (e.g. that they're equivocal, vague, ambiguous, etc.). In fact, you haven't even *attempted* to show me any of these tings. I can go even further -- in asserting (in your five distinctions above) that certain conclusions *can* be arrived at *independent* of sociological influences, you've conceded that such premises exist. Why don't you clarify them? I can only conclude that either you can't adequately respond to my argument, or that you don't understand the mechanics of recognizing, formulating and criticizing arguments. <BR/><BR/>"You certainly haven’t given an example of a premise that provides “conceptual resources” at all. - You never said what conceptual resources lead one to Christianity, so I have no proof you aren’t just making crap up. That’s the OTF in a nutshell!"<BR/><BR/>Huh? This is incoherent. How in the world would it follow from the fact that I've yet to provide an example of the conceptual resources that would lead one to accept a sociologically dependent belief (such as Christianity; assume for the moment that it is sociologically dependent) that it's therefore the case that I'm 'making up'(again, pay attention -- not 'making up,' but 'arguing') the notion that the OTF demands conceptual resources that are not sociologically dependent?<BR/><BR/>John wrote: "My claim is that if X is a religious faith, then most all X's never appear spontaneously, which means most all of them are always sociologically dependent on an outside influence. Christianity in particular would almost never appear appear spontaneously. Atheism can regularly appear spontaneously."<BR/><BR/>John, what is at issue is whether those 'spontaneous appearances' are sociologically dependent, even if they haven't been socially transmitted. It won't do to point out examples of different people, in different times, and from different cultures reaching the same conclusion, and that they the conclusion wasn't socially transmitted. What you must show is that they reached their conclusion by way of premises that are not themselves sociologically dependent. Again, that's what the OTF demands if you follow the logic of the argument for it through to the end, and that's what no one has yet been able to provide. Again, I'm not arguing that there are no such premises; I'm arguing that the logic of the OTF demands them, and that until you can provide them, or at least show that they're possible, the OTF is at best incomplete, and at worst self referentially inconsistent (by requiring a standard it cannot itself meet).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17408109901721734512009-03-28T08:15:00.000-04:002009-03-28T08:15:00.000-04:00openlyatheist said...If X can be Socially Transmit...openlyatheist said...<I>If X can be Socially Transmitted from culture to culture, and can never appear spontaneously, then that means it is always Sociologically Dependent on an outside influence</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent distinctions of this type. My claim is that if X is a religious faith, then most all X's never appear spontaneously, which means most all of them are always sociologically dependent on an outside influence. Christianity in particular would almost never appear appear spontaneously. Atheism can regularly appear spontaneously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9750490007696302942009-03-28T04:03:00.000-04:002009-03-28T04:03:00.000-04:00Eric said something about: “by distinguishing 'soc...<B>Eric said something about: “by distinguishing 'socially transmitted' from 'sociologically dependent'”<BR/><BR/>And Victor likewise said: “Atheism is not socially transmitted? Spend one day in a secular philosophy department, spend one day a militantly evolutionist biology department, </B>(You mean a REAL biology department. Haw haw!)<B> and then look me in the eye and say that. … Do you think that isn't social peer pressure?”</B><BR/><BR/>Well, I admit I must have said something unclear if two people inferred the same misunderstanding. Too bad Christians like to talk first and ask questions later. Come on, fellas, I never meant to imply that atheism CAN’T EVER be sociologically transmitted. If you had asked I would have said that it can. I merely pointed out examples of atheism (and skepticism) arising indigenously. Something that can’t be said for Christianity. So all the following points:<BR/><BR/><B>pay attention to that shift from 'social transmission' in my comments above to 'sociological independence'<BR/><BR/>rests on an equivocation, one which I made clear above by distinguishing 'socially transmitted'<BR/><BR/>socially transmitted epistemological, scientific, historical, geographical, etc. beliefs. Hence, my belief that relephrants don't exist isn't sociologically independent,<BR/><BR/>etc, etc,</B><BR/><BR/>are all based on sloppy interpretations of what I said. I can understand why someone might think I was equivocating and talking about two different things. I just wasn’t. I’m talking about an Outsider test, right? So it stands to reason I’m talking about dependence, and transmission, relative to an OUTSIDE position, not ones OWN, yes? I figured anyone would be able to see that. Why the hell would I be talking about ‘sociological transmission’ within a society, when we’re talking about something called the Outsider Test? Whatever. Let’s try and sweep up another mess:<BR/><BR/>For instance, when Eric said, “"Relephants don't' exist" is sociologically independent? Not at all. My belief about the nonexistence of relephrants follows from a host of (directly and indirectly) socially transmitted epistemological, scientific, historical, geographical, etc. beliefs.”<BR/><BR/>this doesn’t address whether Eric means that his belief follows from a host of other beliefs from INSIDE or from OUTSIDE his society/religion/paradigm/culture/family/whatever.<BR/><BR/>So now, if belief about the nonexistence of relephrants is X, then I say:<BR/>1. If Eric concluded X on his own, then X is Sociologically Independent of an outside influence, not, of course, independent of his own culture, and not Socially Transmitted from Outside<BR/>2. If Eric arrived at X because of a-relephant prostelytizers, then X is Sociologically Dependent on an outside influence and likewise Socially Transmitted from Outside<BR/>3. If people in different places, at different times, all conclude independently that there are no relephants, then X is Sociologically Independent of an outside influence relative to each person and need not be Socially Transmitted from an outside to an inside<BR/>4. If X can be Socially Transmitted from culture to culture, but still appear independently, then that means it is still sometimes Sociologically Independent of an outside influence<BR/>5. If X can be Socially Transmitted from culture to culture, and can never appear spontaneously, then that means it is always Sociologically Dependent of an outside influence<BR/><BR/>Etc, etc. I can’t imagine anything more tedious than having to write out definitions for what ought to be clear. But some people just assume they know what they’re readin’ about and off they go!<BR/><BR/><B>Eric said: “it's about what the OTF demands!”</B><BR/><BR/>Correction: its about what you declare the OTF to demand. A demand that two Christians on this thread must have missed before they took the test and came out with their faith intact. Did they take it wrong? Are they liars?<BR/><BR/><B>Eventually, Eric asked: So, have you found those premises yet?</B><BR/><BR/>Oh, not me brother. Those are your pink elephants to find. You made them up, you declare they are demanded by the test. You want me to look for them cuz you can’t, or perhaps they aren’t there. You certainly haven’t given an example of a premise that provides “conceptual resources” at all. - You never said what conceptual resources lead one to Christianity, so I have no proof you aren’t just making crap up. That’s the OTF in a nutshell! - I looked over on Joe Staub’s blog and didn’t see them, just some presuppositionalist apologetics. But he says he’s taken the test repeatedly. Ask him, “Have you found those premises yet?”openlyatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03799132607816184980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62636736130163807852009-03-27T21:07:00.000-04:002009-03-27T21:07:00.000-04:00Atheism is not socially transmitted? Spend one day...Atheism is not socially transmitted? Spend one day in a secular philosophy department, spend one day a militantly evolutionist biology department, and then look me in the eye and say that. Think of all the effort that is spent making Christians feel retarded. Do you think that isn't social peer pressure? Academics play the "who's in, who's out" game far more effectively than high schoolers, and in many cliques being a Christian is enough to make you "out."Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86996841237030261032009-03-27T21:03:00.000-04:002009-03-27T21:03:00.000-04:00Apparently, you think John hasn't provided a good ...Apparently, you think John hasn't provided a good enough reason to apply the same skepticism to Christianity that you apply to other religions. Given that such an evaluation wouldn't be a threat to Christianity if was true, it's unclear why such technically motivated objections are being brought forward. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps we can approach this from a different direction. <BR/><BR/>Since other religions make claims about objective truth, morality and miracles through revelation, holy texts, etc., you apparently think you have found a good enough reason to exclude Christianity from the same skepticism. <BR/><BR/>What is this reason? What prevents those of different faiths from using this same reason to exclude their religion from the same skepticism?<BR/><BR/>VR: I have subjected Christianity to a severer intellectual test than most atheists have, and it has passed. <BR/><BR/>However, I think, with respect to all beliefs, including those of the Mormons, the atheists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Satanists, and the Pastafarians, and Icelandic elf-believers, that they have have a rational right to believe what they already believe unless good counterevidence can be shown to exist. I am not a classical foundationalist. I am a thoroughgoing Bayesian subjectivist in epistemology. That's my problem with the outsider test. If I understand it correctly, I am asked to throw my priors away for no reason. That is not rational.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13518302057252405812009-03-27T20:56:00.000-04:002009-03-27T20:56:00.000-04:00"You haven’t the vaguest idea what you just said."..."You haven’t the vaguest idea what you just said."<BR/><BR/>If that's true, then it speaks more to you than to me, since all I did was apply your criteria, which were implied in your examples, to another category of belief. You will of course want to claim that that's not what I've done, but hold on -- there's an assumption you're making that you're obviously not aware of -- a false assumption -- that's relevant to this issue, and I'll address it below. First, however, I want to poke some more holes in your position.<BR/><BR/>"There is no such thing as people independently becoming Christians absent prostelyzation from prior Christians, or at the very least a Bible lying around. With the exception of Christianity’s genesis, which was arguably formed from the remnants of other religions, Christianity is a socially transmitted belief system."<BR/><BR/>Let's suppose that X is socially transmitted. What follows from this? Well, not much. No scientist today has independently verified all the data and assumptions he works with; they're largely *socially transmitted*. Or, look at historical data. Much of it is socially transmitted. Does anything interesting follow from this conclusion? Now, I know that you're going to say, "But we're talking about *whether* Christianity and atheism are socially transmitted!" Um, no. You are (now), but I am not and was not (and you weren't either, in your earlier post). That brings me to my next point.<BR/><BR/>"Skepticism, and as I’ve shown, atheism, are not socially transmitted."<BR/><BR/>You've shown nothing of the sort. All you've done (earlier) is provide examples of individuals from different cultures at different times coming to the same conclusion. To say that that conclusion is therefore 'sociologically independent' is to commit a gaping non sequitur. (Okay, pay attention to that shift from 'social transmission' in my comments above to 'sociological independence' in my last comment -- it's kinda important!) Why? Okay, here's where we get to that false assumption you're relying on:<BR/><BR/>(1)If S reaches conclusion C, and C isn't directly and intentionally transmitted socially to S, then C is not sociologically dependent.<BR/><BR/>Did you catch that? (In case you want to dispute my 'directly and intentionally' qualification, let's look at your own words: "There is no such thing as people independently becoming Christians absent prostelyzation [intentionally] from prior Christians, or at the very least a Bible [directly] lying around.")<BR/><BR/>Let me spell it out for you.<BR/>Your *false* assumption (and I do hope it's obviously false to you) both lies behind your claim, and rests on an equivocation, one which I made clear above by distinguishing 'socially transmitted' (which *you* were talking about in your last post, 5:55 PM, March 27) from 'sociologically dependent' (which *you sand I* were talking about in your earlier post, 3:02 PM, March 26). Now, let's concede that atheism isn't intentionally and directly socially transmitted (this is dubious in itself, but I'll let it go for the sake of argument). Does it follow that it's sociologically independent? Nope. Let me provide a counterexample. <BR/><BR/>No one has ever directly and intentionally told me (i.e. 'socially transmitted') that 'relephants'<BR/>don't exist (a relephant looks like an elephant-sized rabbit with African elephant ears); does it follow that my belief, "Relephants don't' exist" is sociologically independent? Not at all. My belief about the nonexistence of relephrants follows from a host of (directly and indirectly) socially transmitted epistemological, scientific, historical, geographical, etc. beliefs. Hence, my belief that relephrants don't exist isn't sociologically independent, *even if the content of the belief itself isn't socially transmitted*. Now, apply the same reasoning to atheism. <BR/><BR/>So, as I said before -- though for different reasons (e.g. its paucity of content, etc.) -- it's not the case that 'atheism' suffices as a 'sociologically independent' position from which to undertake the OTF. To claim that it is is to beg the question, since you're supposing that you've reachd it with those very premises I've been requesrting, and which the OTF demands.<BR/><BR/>"For if these factors were really important to you, you would have implemented them before you became a Christian, which would mean you would have the non-X you’ve been looking for all the time, the one you used to establish what counted as evidence for Christianity."<BR/><BR/>Huh? Keep your eye on the ball. We're talking about the coherence of the OTF, and whether it's self referentially inconsistent. Now, one could come to theism in any number of ways, but none of them in themselves would affect my argument in the slightest. At best, you may be able to take an example and provide me with the set of premises I've been requesting. If you provide those premises, my argument doesn't fail, since I'm only arguing (here) that the OTF *requires* such premises, *not* that such premises don't exist. You're defending the OTF; what you've said above (and earlier, though you were wrong, as I've just shown) suggests that you think there is such a set of premises. Why not educate me by laying them out clearly?<BR/><BR/>"Look how badly you botched the concept of 'sociological independence."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, but in light of what I've demonstrated above, I have to quote that one again:<BR/><BR/>"Look how badly you botched the concept of 'sociological independence."<BR/><BR/>Okay, now that I have that out of my system...<BR/><BR/>"So you reject atheism as a starting point because it is not a full blown worldview. Roger."<BR/><BR/>Wrong. I said it's not a worldview -- which it isn't -- *and* it doesn't provide the conceptual resources required to undertake the OTF. That lil' ol' conjunction 'and' does a lot of work in that there sentence, *especially* when you consider the fact that I've never asked for a worldview. <BR/><BR/>"You *want* something that is culturally independent, to help you determine “what to be skeptical of, what counts as evidence, how much is enough, and so on,” that will “provide one with the conceptual resources he would need to undertake the OTF.”<BR/><BR/>No, no, no! The more you say, the clearer it becomes that you're just too confused to take part in this discussion seriously. It's not about what I 'want'; it's about what the OTF demands! My argument against the OTF takes all its premises *from* the OTF. If the argument for the OTF concludes -- as it does -- that we must be skeptical of religious belief because it's sociologically dependent, and that we should therefore question it *before* accepting it as either true or reasonable, then it follows that the premises we use to engage in this enquiry cannot themselves be sociologically dependent; if they are sociologically dependent to a similar degree, then *they* are *just as suspect as the beliefs we're questioning*! And if I'm not justified in accepting theism because of its sociological dependence, then why am I justified in accepting them (the sociologically dependent 'outside' premises)? What we get is an infinite regress of Outsider Tests until we get to those premises. <BR/><BR/>So, have you found those premises yet? <BR/><BR/>(Given your tone, I had initially included a number of insulting remarks in my response, but I went through it and removed them. You can insult and sneer if you want; I'm going to stick to the arguments.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com