Since providing an in-depth analysis of John Loftus’ dubious Outsider Test For Faith, the former-pastor-turned-freethinker has turned his sights against Capturing Christianity. Triggered by our most recent post listing free resources on the view, he takes aim at Reformed Epistemology (RE), the idea that belief in God can be rational and warranted apart from argumentation.
While it’s unclear why a list of free resources lead to a response post, it’s safe to say he doesn’t think very highly of the view. After perusing his thoughts, there’s unfortunately not much by the way of substance to interact with. Instead of a coherent objection to RE, we are greeted with empty rhetoric and brazen psychoanalysis.
At the outset, Loftus makes the shocking claim that even children know that Reformed Epistemology is false. To quote him:
There’s really only two ways to interpret this comment. Loftus is either saying that children can see that Reformed Epistemology is false or that they can see that religion is false. Two points. First, recent work in Cognitive Science of Religion has shown that belief in the supernatural is natural, especially among young children. The vast majority of children, regardless of culture or upbringing, tend to believe in some kind of supernatural realm.
Secondly, the claim that a young child could see that Reformed Epistemology is false is dubious. The complex philosophical concepts involved are legion. To really understand RE (such that one can actually deny it and not a caricature), one requires a grasp of noetic structures, properly basic beliefs, classical foundationalism, proper function, warrant, Gettier, the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology, and so on. Loftus shows us these concepts are difficult enough for adults, let alone small children.
Neither interpretation is looking very good.
He then goes on to quote Plantinga, ascribing him “psychic abilities”:
While using the term “pyschic abilities” is liable to elicit a chuckle from his largely atheist audience, it’s clear that Plantinga is not saying he has psychic abilities. For instance, he’s not saying he (or other Christians) possess telekinetic powers, or that they can levitate, or that they can communicate with dead relatives. He’s not even saying Christians have any special abilities. If you read his quote, Plantinga calls the work of the Holy Spirit a gift. But if one is given a gift, they obviously don’t possess that gift as an “ability.”
Now, if by “psychic abilities” Loftus doesn’t mean an actual ability on the part of the believer but that Plantinga’s model involves the work of the Holy Spirit as a gift, then all he’s done is ascribe a negative label to the view. In other words, he’s committed a textbook ad hominem fallacy. Calling Plantinga a “psychic” doesn’t mean Reformed Epistemology is false or probably false. It doesn’t mean that classical foundationalism is true. Nothing of interest follows.
This isn’t philosophy, folks; Loftus is engaging in polemics. Nothing more. For an in-depth look at Plantinga’s model, check out my 4-part series.
Amazingly, we haven’t dealt with the most dubious claim he makes. Loftus claims to know why Christians defend Reformed Epistemology. It’s not because they think it’s true or because they’ve been convinced of it’s truth, no. Christians defend RE because “believers don’t think there’s enough objective evidence to believe”:
To reiterate, Christians don’t defend RE because they’re convinced that classical foundationalism is self-refuting or that, following Thomas Reid, belief in God is paradigmatically properly basic, no. Loftus knows better. And apparently so do you! Christians only care about RE (which they secretly know is a laughingstock), because there’s not enough “objective evidence” to believe.
What reason(s) does Loftus give to think his psychological speculations are correct? To quote him, “You know it. I know it.” So Loftus just “knows” what’s really going on. Oh, and so do you. Everybody just “knows” it. The sense of irony I’m experiencing writing this is mind-boggling.
Perhaps the most shocking part of this comment is that Loftus is intimately familiar with the work of William Lane Craig, the worlds most eminent Christian Apologist. Although Craig is best known for his defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he is an ardent defender of Reformed Epistemology. Craig is outspokenly convinced there is very good evidence to believe that God exists and has revealed Himself through the Resurrection of Jesus (see his Reasonable Faith). Yet, as I say, he is still an ardent defender of RE. Why?
How can this be on Loftus’ hypothesis? It can’t. On his view, Craig doesn’t really believe there’s sufficient evidence. So he’s either lying to his audience or sincerely believes it and is deluding himself. Both are serious accusations. One might think they’d need “sufficient objective evidence” to believe either one. But not Loftus. Remember, he “just knows” what’s really going on.
Let that sink in.