John Loftus and the Outsider Test(s) for Faith
John Loftus got mad at me here, and finally defended his Outsider Tests.
Loftus says I’m doing three things.
(1) “mistaking my attempts at clarifying and further explaining the OTF as different tests”
I have no doubt Loftus is attempting to clarify and further explain the OTF. One of my criticisms is they come out to be conceptually different.
(2) “faulting me for not writing to the professional philosopher”
I can’t see where I’ve done this. Unless Loftus is identifying rigor and clarity with academic discourse, I’m not sure I can even be accused of doing this. Plenty of people write well for popular audiences: Richard Dawkins, C.S. Lewis, Neil Postman… etc.
(3) “He’s chosen to personally offend me with his rhetoric in hopes that I will not respond so he can have the last word.”
In fact the exact opposite is true. Unlike a great many others online, I have avoided incendiary insults of Loftus, and specifically hope for his engagement, as generally the author’s defenses of his work are the most worthwhile. I’m not sure why Loftus would be offended, or if he even is offended.
This will be somewhat random, as I’ll just be replying to Loftus in order. You’ll have to follow along in his post, for maximal clarity.
Loftus just repeats that beginning and ending with skepticism, using it as an assumption and as a conclusion, is fine, and it’s not “viciously circular.” First, I wonder if Loftus thinks he has made that concept sufficiently clear for his “popular” audience. Second, Loftus seems to think that showing skepticism has good reason (sociological data) shows that the argument is not viciously circular. Could be, but then we don’t need the Outsider Test, since we’re already skeptics (whatever it is that skeptics are).
Loftus accuses me of willing ignorance of what it means to be skeptical. My critique is that he goes on and on telling the Christian what she cannot assume (namely, like everyone else, she shouldn’t assume what she is trying to prove). Not doing this is not identical with being skeptical. Loftus then mentions methological naturalism and the scientific method, which are also not the same thing as skepticism. He also quotes Stenger on absence of evidence. Are these all the same thing as skepticism? It seems to me that none of them are skepticism. The upshot of this is Loftus has contributed nothing to the discussion.
Loftus says my Uncle analogy to sociological data is dis-analogous, even disingenuous. He says the real issue is that there are many uncles telling nephews many different things. But this just helps show the case to be analogous in more ways than I initially hoped. My specific analogy was to the implicit structure of Loftus’s argument, which is that we should doubt those beliefs that came about via non-reliable belief producing mechanisms, such as trusty uncles. The analogy is not meant to address why uncles are non-reliable. In any case, I made very explicit I was distinguishing between talking about rationality and talking about the truth of propositions.
I critique Loftus for explicitly telling his readers not to bother with his initial reasons for leaving the faith and to look at his new arguments, while at the same time asking believers to look at the reasons they started believing at the age of five. He responds by talking about something else, sociological data.
I pointed out that the worst case scenario for Loftus’s Outsider Test is not, as many critics have claimed, that it is “self-defeating,” but instead that it yields an infinite regress of Outsider Testing, for many reasons including that just about any belief can be partly causally attributed to non-rational factors such as not-being-born-in-Saudi-Arabia. Loftus responds by saying this criticism is “ignorant” and that in “one sense” all tests would have this outcome. I can think of innumerable tests that wouldn’t have that outcome, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Loftus accuses me of using his word “skepticism,” when I claim it’s not clear what he means by it. In the passage in question, we could use the word “smorfitigeb” and my objection would still make sense. His reason for adopting smorfitigeb is not likely to convince those who feel that his reasons for adopting smorfitigeb actually deny the truth of their beliefs, more than just recommending a method.
Loftus also says here that there is no way to decide between belief systems like Plantinga’s which contain within them non-ad hoc stories of how they came about in the believer. But all Plantinga is saying is that we really have to go after the truth of those belief systems. We can’t undermine via “how they came about” before attacking the truth of the systems in question. In fact, much of Loftus’s book is dedicated to this very project. I was just pointing out that his sociological objection, if correct, already undermines the truth of Christian belief.
I pointed out that the Christian can have a Loftus-like reason for avoiding the Outsider Tests. Loftus avoids it by saying that his Outsider Tests have good reasons behind them – the sociological data. Because he has good reasons to believe the Outsider Tests, he doesn’t have to apply the Outsider Tests to them. So: it shouldn’t bother Loftus that were he born in Saudi Arabia, he wouldn’t have developed the Outsider Tests. I agree with this reasoning. But this reasoning will help the crafty Christian apologist, who can say that his beliefs also have good reasons, despite sociological facts. And thus the crafty apologist can avoid the Outsider Tests. For the record: I think crafty apologists should not avoid rationally investigating their beliefs, especially those beliefs that have various characteristics Loftus has pointed out – like being doubted by highly rational people. I just think that Loftus’s particular version of the Outsider Test, and his particular reasons for avoiding it, are available to the Christian apologist.
Loftus misunderstands what I said at the end about finding a good way to investigate religious beliefs. I was talking about non-believers in a religion, say, non-Muslims. If I wanted to be serious and investigate Islam, in addition to reading books I would have to at least (1) interact with some Muslims and (2) make some experiential moves in the direction of Islam. My argument here actually comes more from Pascal than from William James. Loftus’s only objection to this is that it will reinforce people’s beliefs – but I’m not talking about Muslims experimentally investigating Islam.
I am beginning to understand why others have become so enormously frustrated debating Loftus and have descended into pure personal attacks. Nevertheless I will continue to review his book, focusing on his arguments and not his personal traits.
Hi Joshua,
Your work is marvellous.
I’ll keep on track here until you finish every review of each chapter of John’s book.
I’ve not read it and hopefully I’m going to get a gist of it.
Edson.
Thanks. Unfortunately I deviated slightly from the project in order to talk further about Loftus’s Outsider Test for Faith. Very soon I’ll review chapter 5, on the arguments for the existence of God. Interestingly, because I usually don’t like most arguments for the existence of God, Loftus’s mood might swing back to friendly interactions with me.
Edson, I also wanted to mention that due to the cumulative nature of Loftus’s case, and the somewhat scattered nature of the book, it is probably wise to follow along a little bit with Loftus’s actual text, or at least to spend some time looking at it. There is no way I can always capture Loftus’s intended meaning, much less cover every one of his arguments, and still less convey whatever force there is in the presentation of a whole case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
Joshua,
I think the current approach you are using – of picking John’s arguments that you feel deserve special attention, in accordance with your best competence on the subject matter – is the most effective.
It is absolutely impossible to answer every argument. And remember, John or any determined atheist, for that matter, is not interested and nor will he acknowldge, at how best you respond to what they think are their best arguments. So take your way ease, not to please anyone, not to appease anyone but to do your best at what you think you can do the best.
I also thought that you can skip that Case-for-the-existance/non existance-of-God arguments. We/they had enough of them.
If I were you, I would also skip that thing so-called bedrock for atheism, Problem of Evil. It is the same old, boring, pessimism that has got no role to play in this world. And by the way, isn’t Evil there to be defeated so that we may progress?
Any way, your work is very appreciable.
Joshua,
Pascal’s wager as you described at the beginning of these posts about Loftus (which is also how I’ve always understood his wager) seems to be the exact opposite of the outsider test. The outsider tests asks us to step outside the religion and look at it as a disinterested bystander. Pascal’s wager asks us to step inside the religion, become involved with it and take an interest in it.
I want to suggest that most people gain knowledge in the way Pascal suggests, not in the way Loftus suggests. Scientists learn how to become scientists by acting like scientists. They read books written by scientists, study what scientists do, and how they act. They, in effect, become an “insider” not an “outsider” in order to learn how to be a scientists. Knowledge comes from the inside. The same can be said for basketball players, engineers, wood-workers, pianists, dancers, or any other thing humans can learn.
The term “outsider test” is a bit misleading – it suggests we can be outside of all control beliefs/presuppositions/worldviews/whatever. What Loftus really seems to be doing is offering a version of Pascal’s wager for atheism. He wants theists to act as if they are atheists and see where that leads. I don’t see anything wrong with Loftus asking theists to do this (just like I don’t think there is anything wrong with Pascal asking agnostics to do this).
This is a different Eric than the one that commented in some of the earlier posts, BTW.
Hi Eric. Interesting note about the difference between the Wager and the Outsider Test.
I suppose I’m not averse to opposing them in this way. I think something like the recommendations in Pascal’s Wager are the best option for investigating religions. One of the ways in which the Outsider Test fails is that it just cuts out much of the relevant kind of inquiry.
I have a suspicion that the inside/outside metaphor (it really is a metaphor) breaks down at this point. Even if you are “taking the holy water” as Pascal says, you can still be “outside” in the way Loftus wants. The point of the Wager, and arguments like it, is that certain ways of living and investigating put us in a more congenial epistemic position for acquiring evidence about God (if there is any evidence).