![\"OutsiderLoftus\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/OutsiderLoftus1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n***
\n(9-30-07)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
John Loftus is a former pastor and the webmaster of the\u00a0Debunking Christianity<\/span>\u00a0blog<\/a>. This reply is\u00a0at his request<\/a>. I give him points for originality<\/em>, if little else. John\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n John provided\u00a0a general post<\/a>\u00a0that linked to other individual ones (I won\u2019t give all the URL\u2019s; the previous link gives those). In later ones, he merely repeats many of his arguments, so I need not cite everything. I will be meeting the basic arguments head on.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the short version of my argument. It begins with these four propositions:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Religious diversity around the globe is a fact\u2014many religions can be found in distinct geographical locations in the world.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) There are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religion is true.<\/span><\/p>\n To some extent this is correct; however, at least for the western religions, there are several tests from various fields of study (natural science, archaeology, textual analysis, historiography, philosophical arguments, etc.) that can be brought to bear. Those from these traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) hold lots of tenets along those lines in common, and so can compare the relative strength of their religious claims.<\/p>\n Eastern religion is another story, and the presuppositions and conception of God is so different that it is difficult to test or examine rationally by these same standards.<\/p>\n 3) Religious apologists all claim they are correct and they reject all other distinctive religious beliefs but their own.<\/span><\/p>\n We all believe what we believe (religious or no) and believing one thing precludes believing simultaneously in another that contradicts it. Most religious people will readily admit, however, that many beliefs in other religions are similar or identical to their own. All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C.S. Lewis\u2019s book\u00a0The Abolition of Man<\/span>. Sure. This is done in varying degrees of plausibility and rationality, but as a generality it is true.<\/p>\n These four facts form the basis of the argument. Okay so far? I think these facts are undeniable.<\/span><\/p>\n #2 is questionable to a significant extent, as argued. #3 must be seriously qualified.<\/p>\n So if you want a deductive argument expressing this inductive argument of mine, here it is:<\/p>\n p -> q:<\/span><\/p>\n If 1-4 is true, then it\u2019s probable that people adopt their religion based upon \u201cwhen and where they were born.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n They often (even more often than not)\u00a0do<\/span>\u00a0do that; no argument there.<\/p>\n p:<\/p>\n 1-4.<\/span><\/p>\n .: q:<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, it\u2019s probable that people adopt their religion based upon \u201cwhen and where they were born.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Based upon 1-4, it\u2019s highly probable religious adherents will not investigate their faith dispassionately.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s exactly right. That is a major reason why I do apologetics. Religion needs to be held with a great deal more rationality and self-conscious analysis for the epistemological basis and various types of evidences for one\u2019s own belief.<\/p>\n They will use reason to solidify and support religious beliefs arrived at prior to rationally examining them. And because there isn\u2019t a mutually agreed upon scientific test to determine the truth of any religion, therefore social\/political and geographical factors heavily influence what religion one adopts.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, this is undeniably true (except for the \u201ctesting\u201d part). Of course it proves nothing whatsoever about the strength of relative truth claims, so I don\u2019t see that it has much value except as a rather self-evident bit of sociological observation.<\/p>\n This conclusion is the strongest in those communally shared religions where doubt places the adherent in danger of hell, as well as the fear of losing the friendship of the religious community he or she is involved in.<\/span><\/p>\n Or places folks in danger of their lives if they dare dissent (or at least losing many freedoms, and their personal reputation), as in many Muslim countries, or Communist nations.<\/p>\n This conclusion leads to the presumption of skepticism when investigating any religious faith, including one\u2019s own religious faith; for it\u2019s probable that the adherents merely adopted their faith based upon \u201cwhen and where they were born.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n I believe everyone should study to know why they believe what they believe. On the other hand, I deny that there is no religious knowledge or evidence other than these hard proofs from scientific inquiry. There are also highly complex internal or instinctive or subjective or experiential factors that have been analyzed at great length by philosophers like William Alston (see Alvin Plantinga (\u201cproperly basic belief\u201d<\/a>). Those are huge discussions, but not to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present line of inquiry.<\/p>\n John Loftus, in a\u00a0second post<\/a>, presents a typically presuppositionalist, Van Til-like excerpt from Paul Manata (who frequents Steve Hays\u2019\u00a0Triablogue<\/span>\u00a0site). But before looking at how he disagrees with it, it should be known that most non-Calvinist Christians\u00a0also disagree<\/span>\u00a0with this outlook concerning the relationship of faith and reason, and unbelievers and believers. In other ways, there is common ground with what is called \u201cevidentialist\u201d apologetics (my preferred brand). Alvin Plantinga shows one way of achieving a semi-synthesis.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve written papers specifically\u00a0denying<\/span>\u00a0(based on the biblical data) that atheists must be evil and immoral, and affirming that any individual atheist can possibly be saved in the end. I\u2019ve also strongly denied the notion that any atheist who says he was a former Christian must be lying, since it is considered impossible. That is biblical hogwash.<\/p>\n Does this description of the thinking of an unbeliever confirm or deny what I have been saying, that Christianity must devaluate philosophy in favor of believing in historical knowledge of a \u201cspecial revelation\u201d in the Bible?<\/span><\/p>\n It confirms it but only in a very limited way, since this presents the viewpoint of only a small minority of Christians: strict Calvinists (mostly fundamentalists). Not even all Calvinists would take this strict of a view. Loftus makes a mistake very common in the atheist \/ agnostic \/ skeptical literature: confusing just one small sector of Christianity with the whole. It\u2019s essentially a straw man because it is even less than a \u201chalf-truth\u201d if we go by numbers of (thinking, informed) Christians proportion-wise who think like this.<\/p>\n And if a Christian must place reason below his faith, then how can he properly evaluate his faith in the first place, since the presumption of faith we start out with, will most likely be the presumption of faith we end with?<\/span><\/p>\n A Christian doesn\u2019t have to. The Bible doesn\u2019t teach this in the first place. The largest and most continuous Christian tradition (Catholicism) would flatly deny it. So do the majority of Protestants and Protestant apologists.<\/p>\n Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by, what John Hick calls, the \u201caccidents of history\u201d (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that the Christian will ever truly evaluate his or her faith?<\/span><\/p>\n Many (and probably most) Christians never do that; I agree. Again, there is a reason why I have devoted myself to apologetics. If even an atheist thinks Christians should reason more about their faith, then it is obvious that the work of apologetics is crucial.<\/p>\n I would say, though, that there is a version of this \u201cbecome whatever your surroundings dictate\u201d argument that can be turned around as a critique of atheism. Many atheists \u2014 though usually not born in that worldview \u2014 nevertheless have decided to immerse themselves in atheist \/ skeptical literature and surround themselves with others of like mind. And so they become confirmed in their beliefs. We are what we eat. In other words, one can voluntarily decide to shut off other modes and ways of thinking in order to \u201cconvince\u201d themselves of a particular viewpoint. That is almost the same mentality as adopting a religion simply because \u201ceveryone else\u201d in a culture does so, or because of an accident of birth. People can create an \u201caccident of one-way reading\u201d too.<\/p>\n My position, in contrast, is for people to read the best advocates of any given debate and see them interact with each other. That\u2019s why I do so many dialogues. John Loftus could write these papers, and they may seem to be wonderfully plausible, until someone like me comes around to point out the fallacies in them and to challenge some of the alleged facts. Read both sides. Exercise your critical faculties. Don\u2019t just read only Christians or only atheists. Look for debates where both sides know their stuff and have the confidence to defend themselves and the courage and honesty to change their opinions if they have been shown that truth and fact demand it.<\/p>\n How is it possible to rationally evaluate the Christian faith when the Christian can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place\u2013presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the \u201caccidents of history.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This is basically what the presuppositionalists do, but that is rejected by the majority of Christian thinkers today and throughout history. John\u2019s critique applies only to them and to fideists and pietists who deliberately underemphasize or reject reason. it certainly does not apply to all of Christianity. The irony is that he makes a critique of something where I as a Christian and an apologist can largely agree with him. We disagree mainly on whether the critique affects Christianity as a whole or only one small \u2014 mistaken \u2014 school within it.<\/p>\n So let me propose something I call\u00a0<\/span>The Outsider Test<\/i><\/b>: If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim right now, say it isn\u2019t so? That is a cold hard fact. Dare you deny it? Since this is so, or at least 99% so, then the proper method to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s true. Most people believe in religious matters what they were born into. But of course, many change their minds later on. And we must also take into account variations within religions. In my case, for example, one could say \u201csure, you\u2019re a Christian because most Americans claim to be so.\u201d True enough on one level, but it is false insofar as it would presuppose that I am a Christian\u00a0only<\/span>\u00a0because of this factor and no others.<\/p>\n In fact, I have made up my mind as an individual and often changed my opinions. I was born into a liberal Methodist family. I never resonated with that much, and stopped going to the Methodist church when I was ten. I then became a \u201csecularist\u201d or \u201cpractical atheist\u201d for about eight years. That went against my background because both parents and all four grandparents were Methodists. I then converted to evangelical Christianity at age 18. There wasn\u2019t much of that in my larger family, either. And at length I converted to Catholicism at age 32. There were virtually no Catholics in my extended family. So I was making decisions on my own regardless of what folks around me believed (particularly in my Catholic conversion). Therefore, this whole analysis doesn\u2019t really apply to me, if we examine it closely and take it a step deeper and out of the broadest generalities.<\/p>\n Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating<\/b>. If your faith stands up under muster, then you can have your faith.<\/span><\/p>\n That is essentially what I am doing in my numerous posted debates (more than 450 as of this writing; perhaps nearly 500 by now. I stopped counting). I interact with people who don\u2019t agree with me, all the time., And so I am exposed to their premises and worldviews and in a good place to judge if it is superior to my own. Obviously I haven\u2019t been dissuaded of Catholic Christianity yet. And I can demonstrate to anyone\u00a0why<\/span>, by directing them to my debates with atheists and Protestants (i.e., anyone non-Catholic).<\/p>\n If not, abandon it, for\u00a0<\/span>any God who requires you to believe correctly when we have this extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n I agree that every Christian should have a reasonable faith, that can withstand rational and skeptical examination. I do this myself and I write so that others can share in the same confidence and blessing that I receive as I do apologetics and interact with other people of different beliefs. None of this means there isn\u2019t any truth, moral or otherwise. But this is known as the\u00a0<\/span>Dependency Thesis<\/b>, whereby what we believe depends upon these factors world-wide. Yep, that\u2019s right, world-wide. And while it doesn\u2019t prove anything about truth itself, it should give us all pause to consider the factors of where and when we were born, and whether or not we properly are evaluating our faith.<\/span><\/p>\n All true, again. And I agree that \u201cit doesn\u2019t prove anything about truth itself\u201d. I have long accepted the sociological basis of much\u00a0actual<\/span>\u00a0belief, on account of my reading of social analysts such as Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions<\/span>) and Michael Polanyi. See also psychiatrist Paul Vitz\u2019s analysis of the familial background of many famous atheist figures. This also is a result of my degree in sociology and minor in psychology.<\/p>\n There are so very many things we believe because of\u00a0<\/span>when and where we were born\u00a0<\/i>that an argument is made by moral relativists based on it, which is known to ethicists as the \u201c<\/span>Dependency Thesis<\/b>\u00a0(DT)\u201d According to the DT our morals are causally dependent on our cultural context. Even if the relativists are wrong in the very end, they make an extremely powerful case which should give the over-confident Christian a reason for a very long pause, if nothing else.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see why. Every person is responsible for his own intellectual advancement. The trouble is that public education is so rotten today that young minds aren\u2019t formulated in ways that would further this end. They are spoon-fed secularist propaganda bleached of any Christian influence whatsoever, and then given a massive sophisticated dose of anti-Christianity in college (so that many students lose their faith because they are so overwhelmed and unprepared), as if this were a fair, intelligent way of going about things. They are what they eat too.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why secularists are so intent on removing any vestige of Christianity from education, because they prevail only by people being ignorant of alternatives and being presented one side only. I was a thoroughly secularist pro-choice, pro-feminist, political and sexual liberal coming out of high school. I would have repeated the party line impeccably (in marvelously blissful ignorance). But when I started reading some materials with a different perspective during my college years and shortly afterwards (Christian, politically conservative, pro-life), then my opinions changed because I had a rational basis to compare one view with another, rather than ape propagandistic slogans learned by rote repetition (which is much of liberal, secularist education these days).<\/p>\n The Christian believes God is a rational God and that we should love God with all of their minds. The Christian is not afraid to examine his or her beliefs by the test of reason because he or she believes in a God of reason. A small minority of Christians even believe Logic and reason presuppose the Christian God.<\/span><\/p>\n So what\u2019s the problem here? Why aren\u2019t Christians posting by the droves and saying, \u201cFine, I have no problem with The Outsider Test?\u201d Why not?<\/span><\/p>\n Because they are insufficiently acquainted with historic Christianity, biblical Christianity, and historic apologetics. They are fair game to eventually lose their faith, or else possess such a weak, mangled, ineffective faith that they make no practical difference to anyone around them, as potential \u201cwitnesses\u201d of the truth of Christianity.<\/p>\n An outsider would be someone who was only interested in which religious or nonreligious view is correct, and assumed from the start that none of them were true\u2013none of them!<\/span><\/p>\n But there are no absolutely clean slates. This is where I would disagree, based on the analyses of people like Plantinga, Alston, and Polanyi (the latter almost singlehandedly dismantled logical positivism).<\/p>\n An outsider is a mere seeker who has no prior presuppositions about any faith, or no faith at all. To be an outsider would also mean we would have nothing at stake in the outcome of our investigations, and hence no fear of hell while investigating it all. These threats could hinder a clear-headed investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n I deny the premise, and so am skeptical of this scenario; however, I do believe in being as objective and fair as we possibly can be, even given our inevitable biases and belief-system that cannot be erased merely by playing the game of philosophy and supposed extreme, dispassionate detachment.<\/p>\n What exactly is wrong with this? While I know it may be impossible to do, since we all have presuppositions, what\u2019s wrong with striving for this as a goal that can only be approximated?<\/span><\/p>\n I agree, if qualified like this. Good.<\/p>\n If Christianity wins hands down in the marketplace of ideas, like so many seem to indicate, then why not mentally adopt this test? Christians shouldn\u2019t have any problems doing this, right?<\/span><\/p>\n Amen! I try to do it by my debates, such as the present one. I think Christianity wins in any such encounter. It\u2019s always been my experience.<\/p>\n
\n
\n4) All religions seek to answer life\u2019s most important questions in a believing communal social environment where the adherent is encouraged to believe and discouraged to doubt.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/b>What we believe does not depend entirely on\u00a0<\/span>where we are born<\/b>. It also depends on\u00a0<\/span>when we were born<\/b>, and what beliefs and conditions were there when we grew up. What would you believe if you were born during the Middle Ages, or during the Ancient superstitious days before the rise of modern science, Frontier days in America, pre-civil war days in the South, and even pre-depression era days, WWII days, Vietnam protest days, the greed decade of the 80\u2019s, and the microchip and cell phone revolution now? Is human reason that malleable? I think so.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n