tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6256184247801903812..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test for FaithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56861194665095435442010-01-25T13:02:22.318-05:002010-01-25T13:02:22.318-05:00An assumption made is that we all see the same evi...An assumption made is that we all see the same evidence. The people of the world 3000 years ago could have told Israel that their belief in God was just a matter of the sociological upbringing. Try telling that to them as they crossed the red sea on dry ground, or as the sun moved backwards through the sky at a man's request. Do you think the disciples, who saw Jesus resurected, would have passed this test?<br /><br />I think another assumption here is that science is the more reliable source of truth.<br /><br />Apart from that, I am not sure what to say. God's word does address these sorts of discussions. Here is something:<br /><br />2 Thessalonians 2:10<br />The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.<br /><br />That shows a few things. First, it kind of counters my own argument - miracles are not the final source of truth. And it points out something about the kicker being whether people love the truth. For at least some, it is more a matter of will than evidence.<br /><br />John 14<br /> 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.<br /> <br />Here again, miracles are secondary, but are valid.<br />So what Jesus suggests (obviously) is that there is a valid and convincing reason to believe him. In John 5:31 to the end of the chapter Jesus claims that his testimony is valid, and goes on to explain that the issue is the hearts of the people who are listening. God testifies to the Son, but there are many who don't hear it.<br /><br />And John 10:37, same sort of thing:<br />37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."<br /><br /><br />"If in today’s world we were born in the Palestinian Gaza strip, we would hate the Jews and probably want to kill them all." This is a seperate issue, but I think that is a bad picture of the average palestinian, even in Gaza.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06708209663362939644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73655230470633683832010-01-23T23:15:09.099-05:002010-01-23T23:15:09.099-05:00Michael Schermer - "smart people, because the...Michael Schermer - "smart people, because they are more intelligent and better educated, are able to give intellectual reasons justifying their beliefs that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons.” <br /><br />My problem with this statement is not only that it is general and doesn't deal with anything specific (any specific intellectual reason for justifying what is logical and rational to agree with), but it IRONIC in that it does not address "smart angels."<br /><br />I have had the above statement given as a response to my explanations in theodicy...but the one statement that university professors seem to through out that bothers me is "explaining it all away."<br /><br />What is the difference between explaining it? and explaining it away?<br /><br />We can use 10's of thousands of examples of things which are historical which their knowledge of is passed down from generation from generation. It doesn't determine truth. It is a red herring to look at the fallacy of argumentum ad populum as though the children of the populum have<br />anything more or less to do with the fallacy.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39805275997793727712009-09-15T12:42:49.125-04:002009-09-15T12:42:49.125-04:00You ask the christian theist to examine and or bac...You ask the christian theist to examine and or back up their claims without using the Bible as their resource and they will see the downfall of their faith. You also ask them to read your recommended readings in order to see the truth. Ironically by the very core of your argument you act the very same way. Intellectually you say that the writings or books you recommend hold any more weight or truth than the other. How could you ask any Theist to back up his or her position without the evidence in the writing of which they believe including yourself. You said it yourself <em>(Critical scholarship is what we should all try to attain. Critical scholars “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.”)</em> This statement nullifies your argument stating that truth should revolve around self. Therefore placing you as the authority for truth. If so, this theory breaks down for anyone outside of you because it different for each "self".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01039190375490913500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35735530711019832872009-03-24T08:19:00.000-04:002009-03-24T08:19:00.000-04:00Brian said…Suppose we have a set S of propositions...Brian said…<I>Suppose we have a set S of propositions. Under what conditions (according to Loftus) should we subject belief or disbelief in S (i.e. non-skepticism about S) to an Outsider Test (OT)? </I><BR/><BR/>I had already written an answer when I said: "The amount of skepticism warranted depends on the number of rational people who disagree, whether the people who disagree are separated into distinct geographical locations, the nature of those beliefs, how they originated, how they were personally adopted in the first place, and the kinds of evidence that can possibly be used to decide between them."<BR/><BR/>Brian said…<I>Loftus suggests it is appropriate to have something like a "spectrum" of skepticism, depending on the nature of S. He clearly thinks that religious belief requires a (nearly maximal) skeptical OT. He hasn't given us a clear criterion of why this should be, but it looks as if the fact that there is significant disagreement about religious beliefs warrants the (strong) OT. </I><BR/><BR/>See above. Because religious belief falls on the wrong side of every one of the above criteria we should have the most skepticism about our culturally adopted religious beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Brian said…<I>Or perhaps we can apply Loftus' "counterfactual test" to a given set of persons' beliefs concerning S: would they have believed differently concerning S if some (putatively) epistemically irrelevant fact had been different? Still here we'll need to restrict the principle considerably (I would think), since I can think of hardly any interesting beliefs that could survive this unqualified test.</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, there are levels of skepticism. If none of our beliefs survive the outsider test without qualification then all of our beliefs should be subject to some level of skepticism. But we can still accept many of our beliefs. I do not require Cartesian certitude. That goal is illusive and unfounded. It’s just that many of them we should hold provisionally or tentatively. What’s the problem in that? Skepticism is a virtue in my opinion. Gullibility is not. <BR/><BR/>Brian said…<I>Secondly, when we apply an OT, what can we legitimately hold fixed as "background evidence" (B) with which to assess S?....Indeed, as Loftus is I'm sure aware, there are those theists who claim that certain types of theistic belief might be "properly basic." There is disagreement about this claim, but can Loftus give us a non-question-begging argument for excluding it in this dialectical context?</I><BR/><BR/>Again, the level of skepticism depends on the criteria mentioned above. There are some things which we simply hold to tentatively and provisionally. After all, my memory might fail me. I might actually be nothing but brains in a mad scientists vat. I might be dreaming now, or in some kind of matrix. But I don’t think so at all, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/william-lane-craig-is-epistemological_15.html" REL="nofollow">and I have good reasons not to think so.</A><BR/><BR/>Brian said…<I>Thirdly, does Loftus consider himself merely "lucky" to have been born in an era and in a place where, roughly speaking, the scientific worldview is considered authoritative, and where rational inquiry is given (epistemic) pride of place?....Does Loftus owe us a "rational justification" for this luck (whatever that might amount to)? If not, why is Loftus justified in holding those things - the privileging of scientific and rational methods - as somehow fundamental in a way that makes them immune from the "luck" objection?</I><BR/><BR/>In answer I would have to say that yes, I was lucky to have been born when and where I was born to know what I do in order to offer the OTF as a critique of religious faith. We have experienced an explosive growth of scientific knowledge that has produced the modern world. Unless I could’ve come up with this vast amount of knowledge myself then I wouldn’t know any different than someone who was born in 4000 BCE if I too was born then. So the rational justification for this luck is to be found in science itself and with it the acknowledgement that skepticism about causes is a virtue and progresses our knowledge about the world. Even now we must still hold to that which we know tentatively and provisionally, but such things as gravity don’t leave much for doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77750809071133820412009-03-23T21:04:00.000-04:002009-03-23T21:04:00.000-04:00If John is merely claiming that Christians should ...If John is merely claiming that Christians should subject their faith to rigorous evidential scrutiny, then I find nothing particularly controversial with such an assertion. <BR/><BR/>Of course, not all Christians will agree that having evidence is necessary for their beliefs to be justified. And not everyone will agree on what sort of evidence is relevant for justifying such belief.<BR/><BR/>But at face value, his argument is fairly straightforward, and need not represent a particular threat to Christian belief.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401233564061618139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6528004063475056222009-03-23T18:15:00.000-04:002009-03-23T18:15:00.000-04:00This is an interesting topic. Here are a few obse...This is an interesting topic. Here are a few observations and questions about Loftus' view.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we have a set S of propositions. Under what conditions (according to Loftus) should we subject belief or disbelief in S (i.e. non-skepticism about S) to an Outsider Test (OT)? Loftus suggests it is appropriate to have something like a "spectrum" of skepticism, depending on the nature of S. He clearly thinks that religious belief requires a (nearly maximal) skeptical OT. He hasn't given us a clear criterion of why this should be, but it looks as if the fact that there is <I>significant disagreement</I> about religious beliefs warrants the (strong) OT. So perhaps it's just that: if there is significant disagreement about S, then anyone who takes a non-skeptical position on S must do so only after applying an OT, where the "outside" view is one that, whatever else it is, presupposes agnosticism with respect to S.<BR/><BR/>We're not told explicitly what will count as the relevant kind or manner of significant disagreement. For instance, can diachronic disagreement be sufficient to warrant an OT? (I.e. some number of people at time t1 held a view about S that is incompatible with the view held by some number of people at time t2, where t1 and t2 are distinct)? If so, does it matter how much temporal distance lies between t1 and t2? Or must disagreement be (only) synchronic? How large should the number of people in each group be before we demand an OT? Does the proportion matter?<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps disagreement will count as significant (enough to require an OT) only when some further condition is met, for instance when there is some suitably high correlation between the epistemic attitude (belief, disbelief, non-belief, withholding belief, etc.) taken toward S, and some (putatively) epistemically irrelevant fact, like geographical location or historical epoch. (Of course, relevance should be fleshed out a bit in a non-question-begging way.) Or perhaps we can apply Loftus' "counterfactual test" to a given set of persons' beliefs concerning S: would they have believed differently concerning S if some (putatively) epistemically irrelevant fact had been different? Still here we'll need to restrict the principle considerably (I would think), since I can think of hardly any interesting beliefs that could survive this unqualified test.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, when we apply an OT, what can we legitimately hold fixed as "background evidence" (B) with which to assess S? Presumably, a minimal requirement is that B presupposes agnosticism about the set of beliefs in question (S). But what else can we accept in B? Won't this be highly controversial? Presumably it should include (all? only? plus obvious entailments? etc.?) <I>basic</I> beliefs - beliefs that have a source of warrant or justification non-inferentially (i.e. not in virtue of other beliefs). But there has been, and still is, significant disagreement (certainly in the philosophical, and even scientific, community) about which belief-producing sources can confer warrant in the basic way. Indeed, as Loftus is I'm sure aware, there are those theists who claim that certain types of theistic belief might be "properly basic." There is disagreement about this claim, but can Loftus give us a non-question-begging argument for excluding it in this dialectical context? (By analogy: imagine if a skeptic about whether memory can ever be a source of justified belief insisted that one subject memory beliefs to an OT, and that one couldn't (therefore) include memory beliefs in B. Assuming, as seems obvious, that memory <I>can</I> be a source of at least some (defeasibly) justified beliefs, how would this be shown, given the stricture that memory beliefs must be excluded from B?)<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, does Loftus consider himself merely "lucky" to have been born in an era and in a place where, roughly speaking, the scientific worldview is considered authoritative, and where rational inquiry is given (epistemic) pride of place? He might have been born at times or in places where not all - or none - of these things were true. Does Loftus owe us a "rational justification" for this luck (whatever that might amount to)? If not, why is Loftus justified in holding those things - the privileging of scientific and rational methods - as somehow fundamental in a way that makes them immune from the "luck" objection? I suspect his answer will reveal what he might be assuming are properly taken to be *basic* sources of justification; I suspect further that his answer will beg the question against theistic belief. But I'm happy to remain agnostic about it until I hear more about his views.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18173678517328561795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3802796703351581362009-03-23T16:07:00.000-04:002009-03-23T16:07:00.000-04:00Oh Dan...And just when I though we were on our way...Oh Dan...<BR/><BR/>And just when I though we were on our way, we crash back to the runway.<BR/><BR/>:-(Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353173989399382896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72121624533851993152009-03-23T07:55:00.000-04:002009-03-23T07:55:00.000-04:00Chad, people submit papers to conferences like thi...Chad, people submit papers to conferences like this one and so did I. They invited (asked) me to read mine at their conference.<BR/><BR/>Remind me of any objection you thought was a good one, or list a few of your own. <BR/><BR/>And while you're doing so tell me why one should NOT be skeptical of that which we were taught to believe? I don't see any reason for not being skeptical. To argue against the outsider test should be a huge indicator that you are brainwashed and that you don't want to actually consider the merit of that which you were taught to believe.<BR/><BR/>Do you think a Mormon or an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu should take the outsider test? You do don't you? You think they shouold be skeptical about that which they were taught to believe. Why then do you exempt yourself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80714923077915829192009-03-23T01:19:00.000-04:002009-03-23T01:19:00.000-04:00Mark,You are right, it is perfectly reasonable to ...Mark,<BR/><BR/>You are right, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a palestinian jew was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, walked on water, healed the lepers/sick, cast out demons, argued with demons, got tempted by a demon, raised the dead, provided an all you can eat lunch for 5000 and then 7000, calmed storms, got resurrected from the dead, and flew up into heaven where he sits on a throne and answers the prayers of millions of people.<BR/><BR/>What reason can anyone possibly have to be skeptical of that?<BR/><BR/>After all we have a few anonymous manuscripts from over a hundred and fifty years after the fact that said it happened. What more proof does a person need?Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38126533906271871812009-03-22T20:03:00.000-04:002009-03-22T20:03:00.000-04:00Hello John,You said...There is an "outside" to Isl...Hello John,<BR/><BR/>You said...There is an "outside" to Islam. You're it! There is an "outside" to Mormonism. Again, you're it. Such an outsider perspective is a skeptical one, as I said. That's all it is...it's a position of skepticism otherwise known as agnosticism, where one questions all religious entities and explanations.<BR/><BR/>So where is the "outside" of OTF if not the "presumption of skepticism? " Are you now saying a "position of skepticism" or agnosticism is the worldview of OTF? I really think this is an important clarification you need to make.<BR/><BR/>BTW, skepticism is not agnosticism. Though, further down in the very same comment, you do get it right. You say "it (skepticism) merely doubts the claims of others." From your own words you see that skepticism is a belief, (the belief that something is not a fact). Other wise, why doubt it? So we now see again that Shermer's quote, "smart people, because they are more intelligent and better educated, are able to give intellectual reasons justifying their <B>beliefs</B> that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons,” (Emphasis added)<BR/>applies to skepticism, and disqualifies it, as a tool, for any serious search for truth. Don't worry, the irony is not lost on me.<BR/> <BR/>Lacking a better method, I will stick to NOT be skeptical, and NOT being gullible, but informed and considerate, which is perfectly compatible with questioning and demanding good reasons to believe.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad we finally got the “wheels up”, on this discussion.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353173989399382896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66274280973425277802009-03-22T15:06:00.000-04:002009-03-22T15:06:00.000-04:00"Still, it was an honor to be asked."You..."Still, it was an honor to be asked."<BR/><BR/>You asked the EPS. <BR/><BR/>John, are you going to discuss the objections that were brought up in the Q&A at the reading?Chadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17550978576739845242009-03-21T19:15:00.000-04:002009-03-21T19:15:00.000-04:00Mark said...Atheism or not, there is no “outside”....Mark said...<I>Atheism or not, there is no “outside”.</I><BR/><BR/>There is an "outside" to Islam. You're it! There is an "outside" to Mormonism. Again, you're it. Such an outsider perspective is a skeptical one, as I said. That's all it is...it's a position of skepticism otherwise known as agnosticism, where one questions all religious entities and explanations. <BR/><BR/>Mark said...<I>You are not outside of a worldview, just in a different one.</I><BR/><BR/>Skepticism isn't a worldview and neither is atheism. No one cannot predict in advance what an atheist believes just by knowing s/he doesn't believe in any god.<BR/><BR/>Mark said...<I>Can I include you when you add “especially one’s own?”....Using skepticism to promote skepticism is circular. </I><BR/><BR/>I dealt with that kind of objection and there is no parity here at all. Skepticism makes no claims so there is nothing to be skeptical about skepticism. It merely doubts the claims of others. It's the best and only way to come to the truth. Think of it this way: what is your first reaction to someone who claims he can fly through the night to different parts of the earth? Skepticism? Me too!<BR/><BR/>How can one be skeptical of skepticism? To be skeptical of skepticism would result in us being gullible, or in believing everything told to us. But that is patently wrongheaded. <BR/><BR/>Mark said...<I>Nor have you confronted my objections to skepticism, that it is a belief and therefore not useful for evaluating truth.</I><BR/><BR/>What is there about skepticism that makes it a belief? A belief in what? It's merely a very effective critical thinking tool that filters out all of the less than adequate beliefs that don't have much of a chance to be true. <BR/><BR/>Mark said...<I>“The answer is to not be skeptical or gullible, but informed and considerate.”</I><BR/><BR/>What makes someone informed and/or considerate? Not being gullible, that's for sure. Rather this best describes someone who questions and demands good reasons to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83689269415381601852009-03-21T16:16:00.000-04:002009-03-21T16:16:00.000-04:00In John's argument there seems to be a collorary i...In John's argument there seems to be a collorary is the inane divine watchmaker parable (only in John's case, the argument is coherent). <BR/><BR/>You are walking in a field, and you come across a book you aren't familiar with. The title reads simply "The Bible". <BR/><BR/>You sit down and read it there in the field, without discussing it with another soul. <BR/><BR/>Surely, this book is the product of men. It's a book for goodness sake. Do you, based upon your reading, accept the authorship of the book as divine? How could you?Greg Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11362936189772706298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56272645117898451372009-03-21T15:29:00.000-04:002009-03-21T15:29:00.000-04:00Mark said..."Atheism or not, there is no “outside”...Mark said...<BR/><BR/>"Atheism or not, there is no “outside”. You are not outside of a worldview, just in a different one."<BR/><BR/>Yes so examine christianity from a different worldview. How about a muslim worldview, they believe in a god, they believe miracles are possible, but they are skeptical about the new testament documents. They believe corruptions of the documents took place and their literal historical claims in them cannot be verified.<BR/><BR/>So examine the arguments for the new testament documents with your mind open for the first time in your life, or do you think assuming they are true and infallible is a better move?<BR/><BR/>You do not need to assume there is no god, or that miracles do not happen, to skeptically consider the evidence for christianity or specifically the resurrection of the dead.<BR/><BR/>Most people that believe in a god and miracles, obviously do not believe that all miracle claims are true, or that god is behind every supernatural claim. Even william lane craig concedes that natural explanations should be used first when interpreting a given phenomena. <BR/><BR/>Mark said...<BR/><BR/>"You have not shown that a “presumption of skepticism” is useful for testing religious belief."<BR/><BR/>Is the presumption of truth a better option? Mark are you thinking about what you are saying, or simply just trying to argue?<BR/><BR/>Mark do you just walk around believing everything you hear is true until proven otherwise? Obviously not since you reject scientology, mormonism, islam, etc. So on what grounds do you reject those "faiths" as false? Were you being skeptical?Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66914560874526290932009-03-21T14:53:00.000-04:002009-03-21T14:53:00.000-04:00John, you are trying to arrive at a destination in...John, you are trying to arrive at a destination in a car that doesn’t run. <BR/>I am sorry to keep dragging everyone back to the original argument, but here is where OTF fails.<BR/><BR/>1. Atheism or not, there is no “outside”. You are not outside of a worldview, just in a different one. You were going to “propose and argue on behalf of the OTF, the result of which makes the presumption of skepticism the preferred stance when approaching any religious faith, especially one’s own”, but then never did. You just assumed it to be superior, and then went on. Can I include you when you add “especially one’s own?”<BR/><BR/>2. You have not shown that a “presumption of skepticism” is useful for testing religious belief. The only reason you gave for valuing skepticism was that a particular religious belief was probably wrong, but again, you start at the end by proclaiming that the “particular set of religious beliefs you have adopted is wrong.” Using skepticism to promote skepticism is circular. Nor have you confronted my objections to skepticism, that it is a belief and therefore not useful for evaluating truth. Please refer back to the Shermer quote to so thoughtfully provided.<BR/><BR/>You stay “Why object to a method that can help you know the truth?” Because the method you propose if fallacious. And so far nobody has even attempted to refute my arguments, just gone on about my being Christian and not understanding. Nor has anyone tried to refute the superiority of my method of evaluating truth claims, when I said “The answer is to not be skeptical or gullible, but informed and considerate.” (Is it tactless to quote yourself?)<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Anthony, no, I have explained twice (now three times) what skepticism is. It is OTF that proposes “presumption of skepticism” as “outside,” which has to be some kind of worldview.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353173989399382896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78164044938412590352009-03-21T11:35:00.000-04:002009-03-21T11:35:00.000-04:00Actually I think I am beginning to understand why ...Actually I think I am beginning to understand why Mark says what he does. The problem for him is he cannot escape his worldview nor think objectivity from an outsider perspective. So, for example, when it comes to Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, (insert any other religious perspective or worldview) it's not that Mark rejects them because he is skeptical that they are true, he rejects them because they are not Christianity.<BR/><BR/>It also appears that for Mark the term "skepticism" denotes "atheism."<BR/><BR/>Is this not how you see things Mark?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74933341320988461672009-03-21T10:51:00.000-04:002009-03-21T10:51:00.000-04:00Mark, I'd like for you to read my argument again i...Mark, I'd like for you to read my argument again if you would, please. I think a closer reading of it will answer your arguments.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, <I>But wouldn't you want me to evaluate and atheist's argument from a Christian POV, as you would have me evaluate Christian argument from an atheist POV?</I><BR/><BR/>This is where you go wrong. I'm not arguing for atheism, which is understood by me as the rejection of all gods and goddesses. I'm coming up with a test to examine the claims of people who think such entities exist. I'm arguing on behalf of skepticism which needs no method. The skeptic simply doubts and says, "Show me."<BR/><BR/>What's the basis for this kind of doubt? Sociological/demographic evidence, like religions being separated into distinct geographical areas around the globe; anthropological evidence that shows us what we believe is so ingrained within us that do not see culture but we see "with" culture. And there is psychological evidence that suggests we have a very strong tendency to confirm what we already have come to believe--that we have a confirmation bias, as Shermer and Tarico indicate.<BR/><BR/>Given this overwhelming data I'm suggesting we should do the honest, the consistent and the brave thing by plucking out our eyes and taking a good hard look at them (proverbially speaking). <BR/><BR/>All I hear you doing is making excuses because you simply do not want to know the truth. Why object to a method that can help you know the truth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22007242350746446792009-03-21T10:28:00.000-04:002009-03-21T10:28:00.000-04:00Hello,First for Dan,Hi Dan,So if not from the "out...Hello,<BR/><BR/>First for Dan,<BR/><BR/>Hi Dan,<BR/><BR/>So if not from the "outside" (BTW outside the bubble is the same thing), then from where? Do I pretend to be a Atom follower before I can investigate some claims about Christianity? Oh, you mean atheist! Who (Sorry, What) made you the decider?<BR/><BR/>What you are asking is circular. You ask me to evaluate, as an atheist, an argument that says I should evaluate arguments atheistically.<BR/><BR/>I don't need to be an atheist, to see that there is no better explanation for the for the evidence surrounding the Resurrection, than Jesus being raised from the dead. I don't need to be a Christian to see that naturalism has no, good explanation for the size and complexity of the genetic code. That one was the first chink in my atheist armor. I could see, as an atheist, that atheism wasn't working.<BR/><BR/>As far as the Extraordinary claims issue goes, you are going to have to do better than relying on atheist dogma. Cough up a proof, some evidence, something.<BR/><BR/>Hey, when you evaluate my arguments, do it as a Wiccan, that would be great, thanks (unless you find that threatening).<BR/><BR/><BR/>For John<BR/><BR/>Hello John,<BR/><BR/>No, not threatened, I am just evaluating the your argument, on its own merits. But wouldn't you want me to evaluate and atheist's argument from a Christian POV, as you would have me evaluate Christian argument from an atheist POV?<BR/><BR/>I'm glad your talk went well, even if the turnout was poor.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the Post.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353173989399382896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57647270196702178222009-03-21T09:49:00.000-04:002009-03-21T09:49:00.000-04:00I like this argument.Tight.Good stuff.:)I like this argument.<BR/><BR/>Tight.<BR/><BR/>Good stuff.<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82341165630229613402009-03-21T08:10:00.000-04:002009-03-21T08:10:00.000-04:00Deist Dan hit the nail on the head when he said: "...Deist Dan hit the nail on the head when he said: "Mark you appear threatened by John's challenge and are trying to justify not taking part. I think you are afraid of what you would find if you did step out of your christian bubble, and objectively analyzed the evidence (actually lack thereof) for Christianity."<BR/><BR/>I was a bit disappointed in the turnout but like Anthony said we got 'em thinking. Still, it was an honor to be asked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90901586474246835682009-03-21T02:27:00.000-04:002009-03-21T02:27:00.000-04:00Mark said..."You talk about investigating your fai...Mark said...<BR/><BR/>"You talk about investigating your faith, first, from the inside, and then, from the outside, but this is a lot of nonsense. There is no “outside”, at least not in the sense you mean. If you are not “in” the Christian worldview, you are “in” some other worldview. Even the belief that there is no worldview, is a worldview. That makes this whole “Outsider Test for Faith” a nonstarter."<BR/><BR/>The "outsider test" idea is not to remove oneself from all worldviews and start from scratch with a blank slate. It means to be willing to examine Christianity from the perspective of a non-christian, hence the outsider. <BR/><BR/>Yes this assumes that christians hold some basic critical thinking skills, which may be assuming to much.<BR/><BR/>Mark would you rather people naively believe everything they are told? Do you not understand that people analyze all the information they hear as reasonable or unreasonable? Do you not understand that outlandish (being generous here) claims require more scrutiny that normal claims?<BR/><BR/>Do you not understand that saying "jesus was raised from the dead" is not the same as saying "jesus went to the store"?<BR/><BR/>Is it unreasonable to ask/challenge Christians to try to analyze the belief system that many of them were indoctrinated with from birth, to see if they have any rational reason to believe such?<BR/><BR/>Mark said...<BR/><BR/>"So now we understand that we all hold worldviews that need to be evaluated for their coherence with reality."<BR/><BR/>Um, do you seriously think anyone here did not know that already?<BR/><BR/>Last I checked Christians have long agreed with laws of logic, and critical thinking and endorse such as accurate ways to account for truth and reality.<BR/><BR/>Do you seriously think it is problematic to ask religious believers to step out of their bubble and use those agreed upon logical principles to analyze whether they believe what they believe for rational reasons, or because they were indoctrinated with it and accepted such beliefs uncritically. <BR/><BR/>Mark you appear threatened by John's challenge and are trying to justify not taking part. I think you are afraid of what you would find if you did step out of your christian bubble, and objectively analyzed the evidence (actually lack thereof) for Christianity.<BR/><BR/>You can bury your head in the sand if you want.Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36409770097116773542009-03-21T00:25:00.000-04:002009-03-21T00:25:00.000-04:00Thanks for the presentation, John. It was a pleasu...Thanks for the presentation, John. It was a pleasure seeing you again!<BR/><BR/>Much of what I take issue with is brought up nicely up Mark:<BR/><BR/>The “outsider test of faith” posture, presumption, method, or what have you, is at worst either (a) self-refuting, given that it rests on presuppositions that by its own lights need justification from the outside, or at best (b) unjustified, given that it is not obviously a neutral, self-justified presumption. Regarding (b), as at one point you seemed to admit, the “outsider test of faith” is really no different than methodological naturalism. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I’ll read your paper and formalize my thoughts on my blog. <BR/><BR/>Chad McIntoshChadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769271734220181852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33760469286214936292009-03-21T00:00:00.000-04:002009-03-21T00:00:00.000-04:00Hello Harry,I do not think that what you are drivi...Hello Harry,<BR/><BR/>I do not think that what you are driving at, is what Anthony was trying to point out.<BR/><BR/>I am refuting "The outsider Test for Faith" by pointing out that there is no "outside", that the case was not made that a "presumption of skepticism" is an objective position for evaluating worldviews, and that skepticism is not useful for getting at truth.<BR/><BR/>If the point you are trying to make is that Christianity is undefinable, perhaps you also take issue with it blog owner, who seems to think that Christianity is defined well enough to debunk?<BR/><BR/>If you want to make a blog posting about the apparent contradictions of the church, I'll happily comment on those.<BR/><BR/>MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353173989399382896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30797529806477883512009-03-20T23:26:00.000-04:002009-03-20T23:26:00.000-04:00Mark: If you are not “in” the Christian worldview,...Mark: <I>If you are not “in” the Christian worldview, you are “in” some other worldview.</I><BR/><BR/>As Anthony has pointed out, Mormons; Jehovah Witnesses; Seventh Day Adventists and Fundamental Baptists go from door to door in neighbors looking to convert anyone who is not of their sect’s belief system. <BR/><BR/>So exactly what is a Christian Worldview? <BR/><BR/>The New Testament believers had an eschatological worldview that the whole system was ending in their own life time with the return of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Fundamental Baptists are all sects based on an apocalyptic eschatology and all three sects have had members state personally to me that any "so-called Christian" group that is not of their doctrinal stand is of Satan. <BR/><BR/>Thus, any Mormon who attends Bob Jones University will not be allowed to attend the LDS Ward or they will be expelled from the University.<BR/><BR/>So, again, Mark: Exactly what is a <B>Christian Worldview</B>?Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76793427147779726232009-03-20T23:20:00.000-04:002009-03-20T23:20:00.000-04:00Hey John. Thanks for speaking at the EPS conferenc...Hey John. Thanks for speaking at the EPS conference. It looks like the picture came out well, too.<BR/><BR/>http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1747/img0030t.jpgDrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.com