John Loftus on Reformed Epistemology

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.

Childish?

At the outset, Loftus makes the shocking claim that even children know that Reformed Epistemology is false. To quote him:

Here folks, is what faith does to otherwise rational adults. They are pretending to know things even a child can see are false.

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.

Plantinga, Psychic

He then goes on to quote Plantinga, ascribing him “psychic abilities”:

Plantinga argues Christians can be entirely rational in having a “full-blooded Christian belief ” [Warranted Christian Belief, p. 200] in “the great truths of the gospel.” [Ibid., pp. 245, 262]. Moderates, progressives and liberals need not apply, says he. For true Christian beliefs come “by way of the work of the Holy Spirit, who gets us to accept, causes us to believe, these great truths of the gospel. These beliefs don’t come just by way of the normal operation of our natural faculties, they are a supernatural gift.” [Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, p. 262.] If this is not claiming to have psychic abilities to know which Christian beliefs are true ones (what else can he mean here?), then I don’t know what is.

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.

Loftus, Psychologist

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”:

The very fact RE is seen as necessary to bolster the Christian faith proves, all by itself, that believers don’t think there’s enough objective evidence to believe. Just imagine if it did exist. [Go ahead, imagine it. I’ll wait.] Would anyone bother with RE? Of course they wouldn’t! It would be seen as completely unnecessary and hence a laughingstock to propose and argue for it. You know it. I know it. So some of the very best Christian apologists (on behalf of whatever sect they agree to disagree about) don’t think sufficient objective evidence exists to believe. Let that sink in.

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.

Total
70
Shares

SUBSCRIBE. BE AWESOME.

Get updates on new posts, upcoming live discussions, and more.

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
sillymuddlePhilip RandCameron BertuzziJohn W. Loftus Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John W. Loftus
Guest
John W. Loftus

Tell a child of about 10-12 for the very first time you can fly on a horse through the solar system, and they will not believe you without evidence. Tell them for the very first time you’re going to raise their late Aunt Gretchen up from the grave, and they won’t believe you without evidence. Tell them anything for the first time that sounds bizarre, and they won’t believe you without evidence. RE says you can believe a whole host of bizarre beliefs without evidence. Try that on children about any bizarre claim made without evidence for the very first… Read more »

sillymuddle
Guest
sillymuddle

Cameron’s right about child psychology – and yes, it includes in countries where belief in God is counter-cultural, which is the surprising part. I humbly suggest you check out the actual scientific literature.

> But even if correct, a new study needs to be done on how much belief comes from our evolutionary past, not on the actual existence of any god.

Are you suggesting that if it had an evolutionary origin we should think it is unreliable? IMHO, evolution, in general, tends to choose for reliable cognitive faculties.

John W. Loftus
Guest
John W. Loftus

A psychic is a person who claims to get supernatural knowledge or direction “from the other side” of life as we know it. It’s a person who has “faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws, especially involving telepathy or clairvoyance.” It’s the usual word we use to describe someone who claims to get supernatural knowledge. It doesn’t matter if Plantinga doesn’t use the correct word or not. This is what he’s claiming. Embrace it. This is not rhetoric on my part. It’s fact. It’s rhetoric on Plantinga’s part to refuse using the correct word Cameron: ” Plantinga… Read more »

John W. Loftus
Guest
John W. Loftus

Cameron: “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.” If apologists have to resort to private subjective experiences, which can clash with each other, then I think is does undercut them to a degree, yes. Cameron: “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.’” I think it’s the best explanation of the facts.… Read more »

Philip Rand
Guest
Philip Rand

John Loftus

You write:

“But even if correct, a new study needs to be done on how much belief comes from our evolutionary past, not on the actual existence of any god.”

First, I should point out to you that plenty of anthropological research has indeed been carried out and the conclusion of all the research is that:

It is instinctive that all human cultures have a belief in divine punishment.

So, in evolutionary terms the question would be: How did humans acquire this concept?

Two, how would you explain in evolutionary terms how all human cultures have universal flood narratives?