As you all know, Matt and I are going to the US to speak at 4 conferences in November. John W. Loftus is aware of this and in a comment on this blog has suggested a debate between himself and Matt during the 3 days we have spare between conferences – ideally for us 14 Nov. We have had some email discussion with him about this including agreeing that the topic for debate will be something around Loftus’ Outsider Test for Faith, maybe, “Is Christianity True?” or something like that.
A couple of groups within the Christian Apologetics Alliance have indicated keeness to see it happen, we have even had small pledges of money towards helping it happen, but so far no one has been able to say “yes, we will organise it” and we need that to happen asap or we are just going to run out of time. So, can you organise it can you offer support towards anyone organising it? Do you want to see it happen? (If it happens it will be videoed)
Tags: Debates · John Loftus · Outsider Test for Faith67 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Loftus is a Texan? I didn’t know that, but am no longer as proud of my Texan heritage as I used to be.
I think the debate would be fun. The other times he’s faced actual challenges (like D’Souza and even more so David Wood) he was left looking pretty bad. Hopefully he has learned from his mistakes and will do better against Matt!
I don’t know he is actually. Someone told me he was a Texan but on checking I cannot find that anywhere. I must ask him.
I think the debate will be good too. I’d like to meet John given how much we have chatted via email off and on and I think there would be a fair amount of interest in such a debate.
Where do you want to have the debate? I can offer a 400-seat church in Los Angeles.
On John Loftus`s web site somebody made this very valid comment with which I agree wholeheartedly regarding debate with William Lane Craig in particular.
“I’ve watched my fair share of WLC debates on YouTube. I think it would be just as effective if you took video clips of his arguments and juxtaposed them with videos of yourself refuting him point by point. And then you don’t have to worry about cost of traveling or anything else! Hey, it’s not like his arguments ever change– imho, it’s obvious he is never going to open his mind or change his views. It’s pretty moot since he has even said that being time-traveled back to Jesus’ death and watching his body being thrown in a mass grave wouldn’t change his faith. I think that’s the only piece of info any reasonable person needs to see that the arguments have nothing to do with his beliefs. In that sense, is it even worth it to call attention to? His website “Reasonable Faith” is just full of complete nonsense. I might as well be reading timecube.com if you know what I mean.”
UNQUOTE
VERY GOOD SUGGESTION (ABOVE) I`m not a sucker for “reality” television either even if presented by WLC or any other marketeer in a crinoline suit.. I`m more a sucker for balanced conclusions arrived at after months of thoughtful consideration expressed in print. That I can reflect upon at leisure.
Outcomes of debate are not an indication of who has the better ultimate arguments per se or more tenable beliefs or disbeliefs.. They reflect who musters the better argument and presents best on a given day. A slick used car salesman would have better luck selling a car than an A Grade mechanic. A Balance Sheet presents and reflects a position on ONE day only.
I would far rather read and be convinced and informed by written debates as we see in the Economist than a verbal debate between the same economists.
The reasons are obvious. Given the right tyre kicking customer William Lane Craig would be able to sell a car with 4 flat tyres and flat battery .. It`s called stressing the positive with the gift of the gab. Nothing to do with whether the car is roadworthy or not.
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Loftus seriously needs to improve his debate/public speaking skills before he does anymore of these things… but maybe he’s improved since D’Souza, who knows?
All I know is my face hurt from the cringing within the first 10 minutes of that debate, I couldnt even stomach finishing it.
Eugene we don’t mind where, and I don’t think Loftus does either. Both he and we would need help getting there is all.
Matt and I were planning to leave Indiana and head to San Francisco around then so if we went via LA it could work.
If you think we could do it then email me madeleineflannagan @DELETE gmail.com
drj
I agree John Loftus is knowledgeable and argues his case extremely well on his web site. Stand up debates are another matter entirely. Personally I feel they are of superficial value only.
But that is the world we live in. It`s all about immediacy and the moment. Degrees are two a penny nowadays. I am relatively unconvinced by them. But , if we are reduced to comparing sizes, John has three Masters degrees.. Does that outbid a Doctorate?
Can I persuade people to actually read some of John Loftus` books. A very worthwhile exercise. If you are just looking for sterile semantics then don`t.
G. Kyle Essary
When you seemingly expressed horror (above) stating
” Loftus is a Texan? I didn`t know that, but I am no longer as proud of my Texan heritage as I used to be”
I have to ask whether you still wear a 10 gallon hat? John Loftus does or a stetson anyway.
Perhaps that same cocksure bravado is what prompted him to conclude with
“I plan to trash him”. He made that rather extravagant and brash claim when referring to the possibly imminent debate with Flannagan/Flannagans.
Madeleine Flannagan very subtly brought that remark to our attention with her link.
In my previous post I should have better promoted the reading of John`s books with this added detail viz.
(1) Why I became an Atheist ( remember he studied under Wm. Lane Craig. So he is somewhat of an apostate but not without considerable soul-searching – whatever that can possibly mean)
(2) Personal Reflections and Arguments
(3) The Christian Delusion
(4) The End of Christianity
(5) Christianity is not Great.
(A possible play on
Christopher Hitchens book titled ” God is not Great”)
I would emphasise that John Loftus` book is not simply a crass put down of Christianity.
I encourage everybody to broaden the range of their reading. Even if it means vacating your comfort zone.
David, actually I have read some of Loftus books, I even reviewed one for Philosophia Christi here: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/06/the-christian-delusion-why-faith-fails-a-philosophia-christi-review-of-john-loftus-book.html
I suspect my assessment is a bit different from yours.
David, I agree with your assesment of of Craig when it comes to opening statements. They are predictable, how he responds to his critics or rebuts his opponents are not and that’s where debates really are interesting
Moreover the suggestion that Craig is really just good at public speaking and real debate is in writing, ignores the fact that Craig’s scholarly publications are actually considerably better than his debates and he has defended his ideas in writing often.
If you judge Loftus by his writing then Craig should be judged the same way. if Craig is dismissed for his public speaking ability then Loftus can be dismissed the same way.
Matthew
Maybe I am a philistine but I do not resonate to adversarial stand-up debate which, coupled with partisan audiences, is more like a keenly contested football match than a forum for learning..
How often do debaters upon subsequent and due reflection regret something they said or forgot to introduce to their case? Too late for them and for those present to learn some nuance on a topic that is now history (except for the text books)
People of faith to a greater or lesser degree rely on faith to arrive at a belief. Supported by facts as well if they can find them.. No less do agnostics in particular and atheists rely on intuit. If facts stared them in the face intuit would be superfluous.
I acknowledge your being aware of and familiar with Loftus`s writing. Even your argument against his own claims. Where people arrive at different assessments to a great degree depends upon how many claims, counter claims and rebuttals thereof ad nauseam with which one is familiar . When is that brick wall reached? Does that last rebuttal warrant a further counter rebuttal.
As to William Lane Craig- I agree that he is in a class of his own.
Matthew
A handy link
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/06/the-christian-delusion-why-faith-fails-a-philosophia-christi-review-of-john-loftus-book.html
“300 comments so far !! “. At what point did John Loftus and Gear head Ed drop out ? In the 200 range? Ed often posts on John`s forum. Did they drop out through ennui or being beaten into submission by a sublime form of water torture? Or sound argument. I doubt that it was the latter.
That OTF litmus test of John`s is very effective. The shoring up of beliefs or disbelief based on the OTF is indeed interesting.
Are there the same sanctions (social and otherwise) against a child of OTF becoming an apostate from religion as there are for an atheist child turning to any one of the major religions or the approximate 34,000 sects of Christianity in later life? There are a smorgasbord of philosophical choices out there.
David,
We Texans are born with cocksure bravado, and it takes a renewed heart for any of it to leave.
You are right, I should read Loftus’s books…but wait…I already have. About five years ago, I read Why I Rejected Christianity, which was average at best. A couple years later I read Why I Became an Atheist, hoping it had improved in the rewrite. It was slightly longer (I no longer had the previous version for an actual comparison), and was a little more substantive, but still nothing like reading Graham Oppy or even Michael Martin.
I was among the first to read The Christian Delusion, ordering it from Barnes and Noble the day it was released. There were a few interesting essays, but most were Internet level papers that could not get a hearing at academic conferences on religion. I will say that by this point, Loftus had greatly improved his OTF, although it still falls prey to the many criticisms that have been leveled against it from Christian and atheist philosophers alike.
Honestly, I hope that Loftus has improved his debate skills. His website is still full of the same schtick that it was five years ago, so I don’t have my hopes up. Now, as it was five and ten years ago, his best argument is the emotional one. The new reader of his site asks, “How could someone who knew Christianity, studied under Bill Craig and even preached become an atheist?” Of course, there is little academic about it as John himself has admitted in the past (infidelity, exclusion from church friends, etc.). Still, it’s the best thing he has for “deconverting” the college age students to which he aims his ministry.
I would love for an overall improvement among the atheist ranks, because honestly I am bored with it. Five years ago, when the new atheist movement was going strong, it was at least fun. Now that the new atheist movement has slowed and nobody cares anymore, it’s boring again. I’ve read the popularizers (Hitch, Dawkins, Harris) and the academics (Sobel, Oppy, Martin) and it’s largely unconvincing. Furthermore, since my field of graduate study was biblical studies, I’ve read Price, Crossley, Casey, Crossan and others and am still left with a “blah” feeling. There’s just little there.
Hopefully, a Loftus/Flannagan debate can spark a little life back into the new atheist movement and get things going again. Like I said, at least that was fun.
G. Kyle
I agree with a lot of what you say. I am astonished that people can subscribe towards any Christian Orthodoxy (actually they haven`t . Consider those schisms of early Christendom and later splintering into 34,000 separate beliefs)
I am equally astonished that atheists are as adamant in their lack of “supernatural” belief. Agnosticism is not as desolate a philosophy as atheism. Nor does it stretch credulity beyond rational limits.
I remain puzzled that the pacific nature and merit of plain old
agnosticism is not proclaimed from every street corner. Okay it does not have the appeal of threats and promises we are brought up on. But doesn`t even the Bible talk of putting aside the things of childhood. Sound advice there even if you have to struggle to find it.. Even a devout Thomas Paine who believed the Bible was “a blasphemy against God” would agree with me.
Incidentally
If the debate between John Loftus and Matthew Flannagan peters out early due to divine intervention or both being stubbornly adamant. about their respective argument (unlike agnostics)
There is plenty of other unfinished business between the two of them requiring their attention before they move on to fresh fields and pastures new.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Flannagan%22
Matt and/or Madeleine,
I would very much like to hear one of you debate John Loftus. The outsider test for faith features prominently in his apologetic method, so perhaps a debate which addresses it specifically. Such as, “Should one doubt the religious beliefs one is raised to believe?”
Perhaps that’s too narrow. I’d be interested to see how Mr. Loftus’ writings would be affected if the OTF should prove untenable, though.
Daniel,
You may want to check the archives of this website as we have gone round and round with John before on the OTF. Many philosophers (atheistic and theistic) have critiqued it, and John continues to stand by it despite the pummeling it has taken. He doesn’t think the critiques are substantial. Most of us do. Read them and see what you think. A good starting point is the link above in this thread. We discuss it in the comments of that thread as well.
Atheists such as BDK have challenged Loftus to try to submit it to an academic journal for peer-review, but it seems that he either hasn’t or has been turned down. The best we get right now are academics reviewing his books such as the link above from Philosophia Christi
I was born and raised in Indiana.
Matt. If you are going to do this debate can you please where a white hat the whole time?
John Loftus
There was great dignity in that pithy reply. Well done for your maturity !!!
Against the cheap provocation of G Kyle getting all close and personal I should have shown greater maturity and replied earlier. Not that I know you.
It is interesting that G. Kyle finds loose remarks convincing .
(1) Referring to the OTF he says
“it still falls prey to the many criticisms that have been leveled against it from christian and atheist philosophers alike.”
Do vague allusions elsewhere seal a debate to his mind? At least I gave links to where the topic of OTF was being thrashed out. The proposition has great power to my mind. It`s attackers meander into semantics and irrelevancies to obscure it`s importance as a tool of criticism.
(2) It is interesting that G.Kyle seems to prefer the snooty intellect of Michael Martin`s debunking of religious belief with sterile algebraic argument. Personally I don`t . I prefer that of a still church-going Robert Price and many others who are not typical New Atheists.. The fact that such people are not strident must annoy their detractors. A straw man is an easier target.
(3) G. Kyle quite gratuitously raises question against John Loftus`past marriage that broke up. Just like millions of others. That was a cheap and lowly rhetorical device to latch onto. Other religious apologists have done that as well in public equally nastily. Millions have acrimonious marriages. Not all re-marry into subsequent devoted and happy relationships.
(4) Again we have this sort of remark from G. Kyle
“Still, it’s the best thing he has for “deconverting” the college age students to which he aims his ministry.” What a weak and tepid 2 Liner. You would not expect such from even a “College age Student” with an enquiring mind.
However for someone to write off opposing opinion to his own from writers of note and wide acclaim with cursory explanation
” – – am still left with a “blah” feeling. There’s just little there.”
I am not medically trained although I have a son who is a doctor. But that Blah feeling could be symptomatic of something serious like religious dogmatism. There is much of it “going around”.
That “blah” speaks volumes. If he put that in an Amazon review he would be laughed out of town. Not here it seems- It`s not exactly “Daniel`s Den of Lions”
Sorry John to go on about “Blah” , But the word was given currency by G. Kyle.
John,
Indiana, huh? I always thought the hat looked more like Professor Jones than J.R. Ewing.
Daniel,
Take a deep breath and calm down. Now let’s move forward, okay? That was a strange response. You are now responding emotionally to a comment that you only hours ago said you mostly agreed with?
I’ll respond to each of your points:
1. There was no vague allusions in my comments. If you are even inch deep in the discussions of the OTF, then you know the criticisms and those who have brought them. I refer you to the link in the comments above and ask you to do a search of this website. I’m sorry for not taking the time to dig up the links for you.
If there were any academic discussions other than the book review (which I already mentioned the link to), then I would give them, but as I said he has either not put up his argument for peer-review or journals aren’t interested.
Do a search for the OTF on Victor Reppert’s blog. He has offered many criticisms, and offered links to other philosophers doing the same. Randal Rauser has as well, but I’m not going to take the time to look up all the links for you.
As I said, “read them and see what you think.” Maybe you’ll agree with the critics or maybe you’ll agree with him, but sitting around here getting fiesty about a lack of links won’t get you anywhere, haha.
2. As I said, the most powerful argument Loftus has to offer is the emotional one. Reason and logic can be challenging, thus philosophers like Martin, Oppy and Smith are often overlooked by the new atheists because they are too difficult. It’s also why Oppy and Smith are more humble in their defense of atheism. They realize the strength of the other side.
I like Robert Price as well…he’s a great guy that I’ve met personally on multiple occasions. I don’t think his scholarship holds up, but I think he asks interesting questions and definitely thinks outside the box. Last I talked to him, his “church” was having a home group of a few skeptics read and study the Bible together and look for any moral and existential meaning. And are you suggesting that John isn’t “strident?”
3. I never mentioned his marriage, only his infidelity and the exclusion that this caused him among his friends. You added the rest, without any provocation from me.
I stated that his deconversion wasn’t academic in nature, but due to his infidelity, exclusion from church friends and the like. He himself has stated this in multiple places. It was the emotional that led to the intellectual. Maybe you should read his book (WIBA) before commenting on the topic? I think that if you did, you would realize that he says what I said above. I assumed that by your posting the names of his books that you had actually read them, but I guess not.
4. Whenever John has discussed the focus of his blog with me and others in comment threads, he has said that he doesn’t want to be Sobel or Oppy, but aims at the college student. Using “ministry” obviously offended you, but as you go on in your insults to claim that I have an “illness” of “religious dogmatism,” wouldn’t John be performing ministry? After all, the Oxford Dictionary gives this example for the verb minister. It says, “her doctor was busy ministering to the injured.”
You’re right. I wouldn’t include “blah” in an Amazon review, nor one of my journal reviews. I wouldn’t accept it in a paper from my collegiate or graduate students either. But for a comment on an apologetics website to discuss specifically the feeling I get after reading their works, “blah” is just right.
David,
In fact, let’s move the discussion forward. I’ll ask you three questions concerning the OTF. Not for John, or Matt or anyone else, but for you to answer, okay?
1. How does the OTF withstand the critique that it can just as easily be used in regards to scientific and epistemological beliefs? (See Matt’s review of TCD).
2. How does the OTF avoid begging the question in regards to the epistemological stance it requires to get off the ground?
3. In light of the EAAN, how can the OTF even get off the ground to offer a naturalistic view from which to critique the views one was brought up in? (i.e. if the convergence of naturalism and evolution give us no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, how can we even know if a critique such as the OTF works?)
G. Kyle
Re your kind invitation to bury myself in semantics. RSVP
Thank you but no thank you Jose. The road to culture is through simplicity. Similarly the path to understanding is not through blatant obscurantism but empiricism. Not that I have a totally materialistic outlook. Clearly there are people paid well to do just that (argue semantics) or to maintain some dubious reputation.. The topic of OTF has been thrashed to death. I could show you a multitude of threads a yard and a half long not one inch belonging to me.
Here is a more innocent example
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/should-atheists-take-the-outsider-test-for-faith
I am not a rabid atheist nor a crazed religious fundamentalist so I have no point to prove. I just attempt to waltz rather than stumble through life with some element of balance aka sanity..
One point I find interesting is the coincidence of the accident of birth and one`s likely religious beliefs. The checks and balances within a society or group to preserve the status quo amongst it`s members can be subtle or overt but equally manipulative.
Sorry I can`t be more disputatious. If that is what you seek.
After all you did state earlier that you look for fun in the prospect of a debate between two equally philosophically dry individuals viz
John Loftus and Matthew Flannagan. Neither of whom I know so can only judge them by the interest they arouse with their writing.
David,
I’ll pass as well. Since this comment thread is about Loftus, it would be derailing to talk about another topic other than the OTF. Another day and another thread.
Oh boy,
Another foray into the absolute lunacy of the belief that the invisible man in the sky spent 14 billion years playing solitaire before deciding to personally trot around as a man in one particular little planet in the cosmos for the purpose of allowing his own creation to hang him to a tree and savagely beat himself to death as a disgusting , sickening, vile, immoral human sacrifice to himself in order to atone for the “sins” of his little creatures–that he was apparently to ignorant to create properly in the first place!
Forgiveness by the spilling of blood from a savage act of cruelty.
Praise Jeeezus!!!
Christianity, thy name is Cro-Magnon horse manure!
I now feel ashamed to have a fedora that is fairly much identical to the one Loftus is wearing in this photo.
If you look closely the hat I wear is a cross between an Aussie and a cowboy hat.
I have a fedora too. Are you embarrassed about it now?
And I wear shoes. Are you embarrassed about wearing shoes?
The logic of some people who believe astounds me. No wonder they believe. 😉
Interesting debate topic. Its good to spread the word at any opportunity. Hopefully you can make people aware of things that they never knew before
G. Kyle Essary said: “3. In light of the EAAN, how can the OTF even get off the ground to offer a naturalistic view from which to critique the views one was brought up in? (i.e. if the convergence of naturalism and evolution give us no reason to trust our cognitive faculties, how can we even know if a critique such as the OTF works?)”
The EAAN can be used against any argument that an atheist makes. Let’s say we’re discussing whether President Obama is a good president. then any believer could dismiss my evaluation given the EAAN because I’m not a believer. Thus the EAAN can potentially be a discussion stopper no matter what the issue is, and if that’s the case why argue for any other point against an atheist.? Let it be your one trick pony. Bone up on it. Use it all of the time.
While I dispute the EAAN I don’t need to do so at all. For what you utterly fail to realize is that the arguments I make are the same ones that believers make and it cannot be said of them that they cannot make them because of the EAAN. Liberal believers like James McGrath, Thom Stark and almost all Catholic Biblical scholars make the same arguments I do.
And so do Orthodox Jews, and Muslims. It can hardly be said that they cannot make them because of the EAAN since they are believers in God.
So the EAAN is irrelevant to my arguments. You see?
The OTF is based upon that which believers all recognize. It’s based upon that which all believers do. believers like McGrath and Stark even acknowledge the value of the OTF. Even conservatives recognize the value in it. Several of them have said their faith passes the test of the OTF.
So your debate is with other believers, not me.
Don’t kill the messenger, okay?
😉
G. Kyle Essary, I edited and revised what I had just written for a blog post right here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/otf-and-plantingas-evolutionary.html
Thanks for the prodding.
Cheers.
Lofty thinks his “Outsider Test” is the greatest discovery since sliced bread. No amount of reasoned argument will ever get him to let go of it. It’s his comfort blanket.
Just Sayin
It`s pedantic to you. It is important to me. The name of the person you address is John Loftus not Lofty. He appears up front to me as to giving his correct name unlike yourself. Please address and respect it.
Those that are free and easy with other people`s names are so often free an easy with their reputations.
Relative to John Loftus` link immediately above it would be so easy to miss a sub link given by a reader that provides robust and interesting debate.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/12/alvin-plantinga-gives-philosophy-bad.html#1_undefined,0_
So basically John ignores Kyles questions and repeats the mantra that the OTF just applies the same standard to theism that theists apply to other beliefs, despite the fact that as Loftus formulates the OTF is this false and has been pointed out before, what a suprise.
and he then quotes two believers, one with a BA in biblical literature and no background in epistemology the other a biblical scholar whose speciality is otherwise.
John why don’t you apply the OTF to those responses, would any skeptical outsider accept them? Why then do you?
John,
Your choice of a pantheist and agnostic Christian as your “believers” is interesting. Regardless, Matt has already shown why the point is irrelevant.
Furthermore, I agree with you that if the EAAN is successful, it provides a strong defeater for all atheistic beliefs, including their belief in atheism. What is interesting to me is that for the atheist to defeat such a view, their has to be an inherent teleology in evolution that selects true beliefs over false. Of course, this doesn’t fit well with naturalists either.
John,
Can I do a little proselytizing. Does it matter to admit to a possibility of intelligence in the way the universe unfolds? The corollary certainly does not necessarily infer ridiculous leaps of faith to the feet of some god born of Cro Magnon-like thinking.
Why not admit to the possibility of moderate evolutionary theory (as defined by GH Duggan in his “Evolution and Philosophy”) without going overboard on Extreme evolutionary theory?
1. Asking untold number of questions and expecting a reasoned debate on all of them??? How long have you got?
2. Seriously, how much does it matter? Let’s pre-suppose intelligent design… what does that actually mean?? There is still a long way to go in terms of arguing form and function.
3. Would you change the way you lived your life for it??? I won’t be. Life has to be lived within the definable parameters we have. That’s challenging enough. And if I get stuck in an afterlife where everything is perfect (nothing needs fixing!) and I have all the time in the world to (not) fix it, then I will know that I have been punished and sent to hell.
How you face your fear of non-existence is up to you – but I suggest you look to your pre-existence (or not) before you were born for proof of what it is like to no longer exist. Then keep the memory of your ancestors alive – their existence in you is perhaps the only existence they still have. An afterlife will not solve the pain of death. Nor will it keep your relatives from grieving. Nor will life keep your joints from aching or your teeth and hair from falling out. Get grumpy or take up meditation. IT’s LIFE!
The above are thoughts of a sharebroker totally unknown to academia or myself. So feel free to scoff at them. As for myself he makes as much of a point as anyone with a multitude of degrees in philosophy or Theology.
Matt, email me with any news of the debate.
Matt, as I’ve said before, don’t get hung up with the titled to an argument. Think of it simply as “a test of faith,” rather than focusing on the word “outsider.” The way believer test the faiths of others is from the perspective of an outsider, yes, but it’s simply a test of faith. Care to propose a different non-double standard for testing faith? Care to explain why your God did not create your faith to pass this test? Care to explain why people will go to hell who were raised in different cultures who could accept your faith for the same reasons why you cannot accept thiers? Care to explain why you approach your faith differently than how you approach others?
John the problem is your questions all assume the point at issue: that Christian’s utilise the OTF when assesing other faiths and don’t use it on there own perspective as has been pointed out before that is false.
Christian’s do not asses other religions from the perspective of a “skeptical outsider” as you explicate that term.
As you spell it out in the CD, the OTF requires one be a skeptical outsider to all and any beliefs one is raised with, and also that one only utilise premises accepted by all reasonable people. Christians do not typically asses other belief systems by that standard. Christian’s like most people in fact asses other positions on the basis of whether they are probable with regard to the evidential set they hold.
As to special pleading , in fact its the proponent of the OTF that has the double standard. As I pointed out in my review, If the OTF were true then one could not believe most scientific beliefs, epistemological beliefs, or moral beliefs, yet oddly you quite regularly appeal to such beliefs in your work to attack Christainity. Moreover the OTF itself has not been demonstrated to be true from premises all reasonable people accept, so if its true it refutes itself.
Kyle spelt these problems out above, again you simply ignore them and instead of cite a series of rhetorical questions which simply assume your argument is correct.
John , if one must adopt the stance of skeptical outsider to all ones beliefs then one would have to be a skeptical outsider to your belief that other people exist, or that your not plugged into the matrix right now and so on, yet in the CD you claim that your position does not entail this, so you your self do not apply it to all your beliefs. You apply it only to some.
Matt, skepticism is the adult attitude. Grow up my friend. One cannot doubt the very filter that separates true beliefs from false ones. I have repeatedly asked you for a better alternative. What is it? Spell it out.
Scepticism is the adult attitude Christians and religious believers must apply to their viewpoint but atheists are exempt from this exercise because atheists happened upon the right viewpoint and we have to ensure the outsider test is applied consistently.
No madelaine. Athiests ARE the outsiders. So any analysis taken on by an atheist is by definition an outside viewpoint. Atheists don’t actually hold any philosophical views themselves, but have a neutral logical approach which allows them to act as unbiased observers of all religions and non-atheistic worldviews.
Max, You have restored my faith somewhat in the innocence of Atheism. What is outrageous- what is contentious about philosophical disbelief?
Try though they will apologists have to create their own straw man in their argument to attack atheism. Surely atheism or agnosticism should be the default position of philosophy. What a crazy world it would be if science adopted any old theory as fact without investigation. Like it or not mankind has to live by what is real rather than fantasy.
Mind you it would ” all be rather nice” (John Le Messeurier) if fantasy was real. Walt Disney seemed to do it. The producers of Coronation Street did it for a surprising number of their viewers. Or, if you are just a boring scientist, Just press the right buttons in the quantum world.
John,
Do you not see why you must beg the question for the argument to get off the ground? Saying that your worldview “is the adult perspective” says nothing other than you can arbitrarily place attributes on your perspective.
I have yet to reject a religion due to skepticism. I reject Islam, because I am a Christian and know that a Unitarian god does not exist. I reject Mormonism, because I am a Christian and know that God is not material.
An “outsider” according to the OTF is simply one who begs the question in favor of a different perspective. If I assume Islam is true, then I will view Christianity in a different light. If I assume Mormonism is true, then I will view Christianity in a different light…and yes, if I assume Skepticism is true, I will view Christianity in a different light…just as if I assume evolution is false, I will view the evidence in its favor in a different light. If I assume All Blacks are the best team in the world, I’ll view the evidence of their upcoming slaughter by the hands of the Wallabies in a different light (had to throw that in for Matt and Mads).
Facts are not neutral and begging the question in favor of viewing them in light of your worldview doesn’t do anything more than commit a logical fallacy.
David,
I believe Max was parodying their position. There is no such thing as “neutrality,” and we come to all facts with personal knowledge that interprets them in light of a larger perspective. That includes atheists. Some good starting points would be:
1. The Myth of Religious Neutrality – Roy Clouser
2. Whose Justice, Which Rationality? – Alisdair Macintyre
3. Critique of Theoretical Thought – Herman Dooyeweerd
4. Personal Knowledge – Michael Polanyi
That’s four books from four radically different perspectives who come to the same conclusion about knowledge. There’s no such thing as “neutral facts” or a “neutral perspective.”
“Matt, skepticism is the adult attitude. Grow up my friend. One cannot doubt the very filter that separates true beliefs from false ones.”
Skepticism concerning what, John? I think that was Matt’s point. You’d like to apply it selectively, using it to rationalize your rejection of theism because of the cultural factors which contribute to/cause religious belief, but you do not seem to agree that the case you make for the OTF could be made equally for any belief held at least in part because of cultural factors.
And what is the “filter” you reference which separates true beliefs from false ones? Doubt itself? Ah, but you can’t doubt that this is true, that doubt may be juvenile rather than adult? Why not? Because doubt is how you separate true beliefs from false ones. You seem to be begging the question, John.
“Athiests ARE the outsiders. So any analysis taken on by an atheist is by definition an outside viewpoint. Atheists don’t actually hold any philosophical views themselves, but have a neutral logical approach which allows them to act as unbiased observers of all religions and non-atheistic worldviews.”
I can’t tell whether this is a joke or not. Atheists, by a certain definition, have no opinion on the existence of God. This by no means implies a lack of philosophical views! Surely theism and atheism are not the only philosophical views out there. Does an atheist lack belief in God for any rational reason? If so, then his lack of belief arises at least in part (he supposes) because he has given it thought and rejected or withheld belief in God’s existence. This thought process is prone to error and influence by outside factors, like his place of birth, his family, his education, etc… Furthermore he must admit that he is likely to have been a theist of some kind had he been born, say, in Saudi Arabia. So he holds a belief (or withholds belief) as a result of a process of thought which is prone to error and to influence from non-rational cultural/geograpic sources; he would likely hold the opposite belief had he been born elsewhere or elsewhen. He should be skeptical about his conclusion and should reexamine his conclusion from the point of view of someone who is “outside” atheism.
One might exempt the atheist from this by simply suggesting that atheism is not really a belief (you say atheists have no philosophical views) and presumably atheists also have no philosophical beliefs. Including beliefs about the falsehood of theism, or of Christianity, or the possibility of miracles, or metaphysics, or epistemology. Once you relinquish any views you have about epistemology, the OTF goes out the window, because *how* we know things is a philosophical question, and as an atheist you (supposedly) have no philosophical views. Including the view that theism is not epistemically justified. It does not appear, then, that you are in a position to make any objections at all.
G. Kyle
We are what we “know” and what we believe. The baggage we bring with us is based on bias. But that word bias does not necessarily presume a negative connotation. The bias one person brings to a contentious issue may be more founded on truth than the bias of another. Would an agnostic likely be more neutral from false bias than an atheist or somebody religiously devout? One would hope so. But, the issue is complicated.
Where we talk about and claim as facts events , where they occurred in the obscure past and based on dubious criteria and standards of proof (judged by a person living centuries later) it is not surprising that they should not carry the weight of the fact of events of say yesterday. Particularly if repeatable( Distance lends undue enchantment to the view) If there is not overwhelming evidence only emotional incredulity they are not then “facts” to everyone. They should remain as beliefs.
David,
I think your first paragraph gets close to getting what I’m saying. I agree with much of what you said there. For instance, I agree that bias is not always negative. I also agree that some biases are closer to truth. This means we must first assess our epistemologies before we assess the data.
On the other hand, I’m not sure how an “agnostic” is more neutral than an atheist or religiously devout person. If agnostic is more than ignorance, the position is just as biased as the others. If all three groups are given a set of data pertaining to X, then I’m not sure why taking the position “I will hold out for more data in regards to believing in X” or “I’m not sure whether or not to believe in X” is any more or less biased than “I believe in X” or “I do not believe in X.”
The agnostic position makes claims about the sufficiency and nature of the data as well as the nature and comprehensibility of X when assessing the data, just as the atheist and religious believer do. We all view data within a network of beliefs and in relation to other data that shapes how the data is interpreted. Thus, we all bring bias to the situation whether or not we claim to know the situation and whether or not we are aware of such biases.
Thus, I disagree with your second paragraph. All facts, historical, scientific, economic or whatever must be placed into a cognitive framework and worldview. They are not neutral. So, within the framework of a Christian who has been given God’s revelation of past events, these interpreted events stand more firmly entrenched than knowledge of whether or not I ate six or seven crackers with lunch yesterday. Historical events after all, are by definition non-repeatable. Sure, crossing the Rubicon can be repeated, but not by the same individual in the same setting in the same situation. There are way too many factors in play that cannot be controlled…including time itself.
Therefore, in light of cognitive frameworks and worldviews and the way that these shape how we interpret reality, how can the OTF possibly frame itself in a non-question begging way? It requires me to step out of my worldview and accept another worldview as a means of assessing my worldview…that is the very definition of question-beggining in that it assumes an answer to the question of the validity of my worldview within the question itself.
By the way, let me say that I agree that within an atheistic perspective most beliefs are dead in the water (as John concedes above concerning the EAAN). I think the EAAN is successful and have yet to find a good refutation (trust me, I’ve read many). Furthermore, I think those classical problems of philosophy are too much for an atheistic worldview to handle, reducing all knowledge to probabilities (due to the problem of induction) and power (ala Foucault, “power is knowledge”). As a result, I think the atheistic worldview has a very difficult time consistently rising above an inherent nihilism. In light of these problems (and there are oh so many more), why in the world would I think that such a worldview would or should be worthy of critiquing my own?
In the previous comment that should be “as John concedes above concerning the EAAN if it is successful“
G. Kyle
Can you patronise me further by developing a little on what may be but simple esoterics to you, but not so to myself, where you claim below.
So, within the framework of a Christian who has been given God’s revelation of past events, these interpreted events stand more firmly entrenched than knowledge of whether or not I ate six or seven crackers with lunch yesterday
Matt writes:
“John , if one must adopt the stance of skeptical outsider to all ones beliefs then one would have to be a skeptical outsider to your belief that other people exist, or that your not plugged into the matrix right now and so on, yet in the CD you claim that your position does not entail this, so you your self do not apply it to all your beliefs. You apply it only to some.”
Belief that other people exist, or not plugged into a matrix seem like red herrings to me. Even if the OTF didn’t apply to those arenas (I don’t know if they do or not) that does not mean it does not apply to another arena, yes? But both Matt and John probably agree that other people exist and that people are not plugged into the matrix, so with this as a starting position the OTF has utility.
Can Matt provide theistic arguments to show we are not in a matrix or that other people exist (i.e. arguments that have uniquely theistic elements, without, of course, conflating “reason” and “theism” in a fog of semantic confusion.)
Daniel,
I won’t patronise you, but I can attempt to explain more clearly what I was saying. It’s a theological point based on these premises:
1. As Christians, God alone is omniscient
2. All humans, individually and as a collective, are not
3. All facts are interpreted (what I stated above)
4. If God provides interpretation, then it is supreme and correct
The Christian tradition has historically attempted to “think God’s thoughts after him.” As Christians, we admit that apart from God all knowledge claims are at best probabilities. Thus, I think I am pretty sure that I had crackers two days ago, and pretty sure that it was six and not seven…but it wasn’t counting as I ate and can only guesstimate at this point.
On the other hand, if God has revealed Himself in Scripture (a theological point that Christians hold), then his interpretation of events stands above our interpretation of events. Having only limited knowledge, we submit ourselves to His revelation as the omniscient One.
This does not mean that we don’t ask questions, do research and find new information, but that we bring all thoughts under submission to Christ as Lord. This also does not mean that, as a fallen human, I will always adequately understand God’s revelation or will ever have complete knowledge, for only He is the Supreme Knower.
I hope that helps.
Oops that should have been addressed to David, not Daniel.
G. Kyle,
Thanks for that.
Are you speaking for all Christians when you say “a Christian who has been given God’s revelation of past events” or for yourself alone. Are you referring to a particular version, or, rather a generic Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
If your choice is say the King James version what causes you to believe that that interpretation above all others is the definitive interpretation of what you might call God`s revelation? Why I ask whether you speak for all christians,
when you claim to have been given God`s revelation of past events, is because I don`t know which category of christian you come from viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
I have seen bandied around guesstimates of the number of Christian denominations they range from 34,000- 38,000. Clearly they all have good cause to not speak with one voice. In fact to distance themselves from one another.
For that reason it is hard to determine which sect, denomination, schism to address to become better informed about what pre-occupies them all. And why they prefer exclusivity from one another to consensus or ecumenism.
Maybe you meant your revelation came from personal experience rather than the Bible in which case, as with biblical patriarchs and St. Paul etc, your revelation was personal making it difficult to proclaim as universal..
Your revelation would not be unique. http://new-birth.net/revelation.htm Dr. James Padgett and Samuels had interesting revelations over a long period of time. See Revelation 19 from Jesus referring to “the First Miracle
and other absurdities”. In fact Jesus explains away, in other Revelations, to Dr Padgett many of what the Bible claims as Miracles. This is done in a very adult fashion. In Revelation #24 Jesus makes corrections to the Gospel of St. John.
On your other 4 points- Numbers #1 and #4 are very bold claims indeed..
David,
Slow down buddy. I’m not claiming any special revelation, or a particular revelation to my denomination of Christianity. It’s a common tactic to split Christians against each other as though they hold completely different faiths, but the differences are not so extreme. Consider that, as of May 2011, estimates placed global Christianity at 33.2% of the total population. That makes up an estimated 2.18 billion (1.7 billion adult church monthly attenders). Of those, 1.32 billion are Roman Catholic holding to the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, etc. They hold firmly that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind (see here for their doctrine of Scripture – http://ncrcafe.org/node/2228). Another .27 billion are Orthodox who hold to those same beliefs, with another .35 billion who are Evangelical and agree on all of those same core beliefs. Add .11 billion Anglicans who also hold to those creeds and doctrine of Scripture and you’re starting to see that we now have 2.05 of the 2.18 billion (94%) in agreement about the major doctrines and authority of Scripture. We could keep doing this as many of the Independents are Pentecostals who would also believe similarly. When you scratch the surface of the old “which version of Christianity” argument, you find out that it doesn’t go deep.
Among those branches of Christianity, there are differences on the doctrine of revelation, but they all affirm that the 66 books generally called the Old Testament and New Testament are “breathed out by God.” The edges of the canon may be more fuzzy, but everyone is in agreement about those 66. They are what we call verbum Dei. The argument I’m making concerning the nature of revelation fits well within standard, orthodox Christianity that over 2 billion people worldwide hold.
Of course, you can drag the “35,000 forms” red herring across the road and attempt to divert from the criticisms of both the OTF and atheism stated above, but it won’t get you far. Some recent polls have shown that as many as 20% of self-proclaimed American atheists believe in a personal god, 10% pray weekly and half pray at least once a year. Others have shown they are more likely to believe in aliens, paranormal events and even bigfoot. I’m assuming you don’t believe in any of those, so whenever I address you as an atheist, I’m assuming you are the typical no-gods, no-supernatural kind. I’d appreciate the same in regards to Christianity. Yep, there are some nutters out there. Westboro Baptist is a good example…but that church has about 30 people who don’t even make a drop in the 2.18 billion who claim to be Christian worldwide…so be more realistic if you want to have a serious discussion.
Now, with that diversion aside, are you willing to attempt to address Matt’s or my problems with the OTF or any of the undercutters for atheist beliefs mentioned above?
By the way, how are points #1 and #4 bold since I stated from the start that they are being made “as a Christian?” Have you ever met a Christian who denies God’s omniscience or that his interpretation of reality trumps our limited perspective? Maybe you didn’t read my comment, but those two points are part and parcel of orthodox Christianity.
G. Kyle
Just a brief reply to your “challenge”. My interest is not in the interminable debate. If it was it would keep me off the golf course which in my particular philosophy is a far more productive and satisfying use of time. I leave the strutting and fretting on life`s stage to the experts (the strutters and fretters)
My interest is pure and simple and to you perhaps naive. I repeat
“One point I find interesting is the coincidence of the accident of birth and one`s likely religious beliefs. The checks and balances within a society or group to preserve the status quo amongst it`s members can be subtle or overt but equally manipulative.”
G. Kyle,
You later asked
” Have you ever met a Christian who denies God’s omniscience or that his interpretation of reality trumps our limited perspective? Maybe you didn’t read my comment, but those two points are part and parcel of orthodox Christianity”.
UNQUOTE
No ! Nor have I met a Christian who can adequately define satisfactorily for me the word God. Nor the limits of their God`s omniscience.
Nor have I met a Christian who actually “knows” these things beyond believing in them. The latter being by far the easier task. If they did know then atheists and agnostics would seek their wisdom like never before as though some Oracle at Delphi.
Until then
G.Kyle,
Perhaps I should have been surprised that you did not
comment upon the llnk containing Revelations conveyed to Dr.
James Padgett and Dr. Samuels. In particular Revelation 18
“Jesus Disclaims Several Miracles Attributed To Him”
http://new-birth.net/ntr/revelation18.htm
It is almost as if Jesus is reasoning/rationalising as to a child how false rumours can be spread. amongst the credulous to become folk lore or common belief.
Should we treat this Revelation as being ridiculous and with appropriate Patrician scorn?
David,
You are right. Thinking through your position is challenging and time consuming. It’s much easier to focus on breaking 80 (something I need to spend more time on myself!).
I commented that I’m not talking about a personal revelation, but the revelation to the church…thus, if there is some kook who claims special revelation that the Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal to the rest of us then I’m pretty sure he’s in error.
God is defined in the creeds, and you get a great picture of his “definition” in action through the Scriptures. It seems to me that you’ve simply never discussed theology or even apologetics with anyone who has studied theology…or maybe even read the Bible and creeds. Honestly, there are way too many apologists who find an argument or two that they can defend well and make that their focus. Unfortunately, they don’t even know the gospel they are supposed to be defending and can lead to greater confusion. It’s sort of like the atheists who rant and rave about how their atheism is a “lack of belief.” They bring more harm to the equation than help.
Anyways, I think we are done here. At least I am. I’m guessing from the times that you post that you life in the States, so enjoy a few more good rounds of golf before the winter weather comes. Peace.
G. Kyle,
I can assure you that scoring 80 would not have won me two course records in two countries. If approached in the right way golf is the most testing of both character and skills that can be experienced in life. The danger is becoming fanatical where it can affect a balanced attitude to life. That, I suppose, is a caveat having application in other departments of life as well. And, who is to define the question of best balance. Now if this was to become a golfing forum. There could still be the same points scoring if that is really necessary. After all – we are all adults.
After 7 years of church schooling I too was very influenced as an example of the OTF in operation. But one has a lifetime to adjust to a sound stance in both golf and life.
Mind you I still expose my thinking to other people`s (they always are other people`s aren`t they) Revelations. Even those in the Link that I gave you. In respect to which you twice to date have made no comment.
Yea, that would be cool. It’d be better if we could all go out and have a beer, or ten and agree to disagree. come to Nor Cal and enjoy the perfect weather. Awesome sauce.
Kriss
Krissthesexyatheist,
You temptress. Are you suggesting I abandon all this futile and interminable argument that passes for ultimate knowledge merely to visit your State?
I don’t want to see Loftus, period