Navigate
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Book Reviews
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussions
    • Podcast
    • Talks
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • Epistemology
    • Free Stuff
    • God
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Reformed Epistemology
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
  • Shop
  • Free Resources
  • FAQ
  • Get in Touch
  • Donate?
  • Follow Us
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • SoundCloud
    • YouTube
  • Articles
  • Book Reviews
  • Interviews
  • Live Discussions
  • Podcast
  • Talks
8K
756
2K
564
Subscribe
Capturing Christianity

Exposing the Intellectual Side of Christian Belief

Capturing Christianity Capturing Christianity
  • Home
  • Our Story
  • Topics
    • Apologetics
    • EAAN
    • Epistemology
    • Faith
    • Interviews
    • Live Discussion
    • Moral Argument
    • Naturalism
    • Science
    • Street Epistemology
    • Theology
    • Reformed Epistemology
  • Shop
  • FAQ
  • Get in Touch
  • Donate?
0
outsider test for faith
  • Articles

Analyzing The Outsider Test For Faith (Part 3)

  • December 8, 2017
  • 3 comments
  • 7 minute read
  • 2.9K views
  • Cameron Bertuzzi
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0

As we saw in Parts 1 & 2, the Outsider Test For Faith is an objection to Christian belief that says (a) a stance of skepticism toward any particular religion is the only warranted position unless (b) the belief in question passes “intellectual muster.” Atheist freethinker John Loftus provides six considerations that, in his mind, warrant a position of skepticism toward any religion, including Christianity.

Let’s review them once again:

The amount of skepticism warranted depends on [1] the number of rational people who disagree, [2] whether the people who disagree are separated into distinct geographical locations, [3] the nature of those beliefs, [4] how they originated, [5] how they were personally adopted in the first place, and [6] the kinds of evidence that can possibly be used to decide between them. My claim is that when it comes to religious beliefs a high degree of skepticism is warranted because of these factors.

In Part 1 of this series we saw that his first skeptical consideration leads to skepticism only if Equal Weight Theory (EWT) is true, but, I argued, EWT is ultimately self-defeating. In Part 2 we saw that his second consideration is also doomed for failure. The fact that I probably wouldn’t believe in Christianity if I were born in Saudi Arabia doesn’t mean that I am unjustified in my belief. As a result of what I’ve argued in part 1 and 2, neither of Loftus’ first two considerations warrant skepticism.

In part 3 of the series, I will argue that the remaining considerations ([3]-[6] above) warrant skepticism only if it is known that Christianity is false. First, let me briefly lay out what is known as Reformed Epistemology.

Reformed Epistemology

In his work, Alvin Plantinga distinguishes between de jure and de facto objections to Christian belief. De facto objections are aimed at the existence of God. They aim to show that Christianity is false. De jure objections, on the other hand, are aimed at believers and their beliefs. These objections seek to show that Christian belief is unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted.

Here is an example of a de jure objection to Christian belief:

(1) It is rational to believe in Christianity only on the basis of a good argument.
(2) There is no good argument for Christianity.
(3) Therefore, it is not rational to believe in Christianity.

Plantinga responds to this objection by challenging premise (1). He argues that (1) is false because belief in Christianity can be “properly basic.” A belief is basic when it is not held on the basis of any argument. However, not every basic belief is properly basic. Properly basic beliefs are basic beliefs that are rational for a person to hold. No one is rational in holding the basic belief that your next gamble at the casino will make you a millionaire. On the other hand, when I jam my finger in a car door and believe that I feel pain, this belief is both basic and properly basic.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In his work, Plantinga argues that de jure objections reduce to de facto objections. This is because if Christianity is true, then it’s likely that Christian belief is properly basic, and second, if Christianity is false, then it’s likely that Christian belief is not properly basic. If this is right, then the answer to whether Christian belief is properly basic will depend on whether Christianity is true or false. In other words, the epistemological question is not separate from the metaphysical question.

With this in mind, let’s list each of the remaining skeptical considerations and see if they warrant skepticism.

The Nature of Christian Beliefs

His third skeptical consideration says that the nature of Christian beliefs warrants skepticism. Now, it’s not immediately obvious what Loftus means by “the nature of [Christian] beliefs.” What precisely about Christian beliefs warrants skepticism? Part of me thinks he sort of ran out of things to say and was merely summarizing his first two points. Another part thinks that maybe he’s trying to say that Christian belief is really complex or affirms things he finds implausible (e.g.: belief in God) and so Christian belief ought to be met with skepticism. Let’s take this second interpretation.

Suppose that for whatever reason Christian belief is super unlikely. Let’s assume this is true for the sake of argument. Does it follow that Christian belief is unjustified? Well, if Reformed Epistemology is true, then no, that doesn’t necessarily follow.

Here’s an analogy. The world around us is highly complex. Scientists have estimated that there are roughly 10^80 fundamental particles in our universe. These particles all obey a variety of physical laws, act in certain ways, occupy different regions of spacetime, and so on. Does this mean that, unless we have really good arguments and evidence, we can’t be justified in believing that the universe is real? Ask yourself, do you have good arguments and evidence that you aren’t in the Matrix or a brain sitting in a vat of chemicals?

Here’s the point: If Christianity is true, then God plays a causal role in the formation of Christian beliefs. However, Christianity is only irrational or unjustified if God doesn’t play a causal role in the process. In other words, Christianity is irrational only if Christianity is false. As with belief in the external world, argumentation isn’t always necessary [1].

Belief Origins

Loftus’ fourth and fifth considerations have to do with belief origins. The question of origins–at least with respect to religious belief–falls under the jurisdiction of Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR). It’s undeniable that religious belief is widespread, even natural. Most cultures throughout the centuries have believed in God or gods. It’s safe to say that religious belief is both natural (biologically) and normal (statistically). But why is this?

The standard view in CSR is that religious belief is a byproduct [2] of a cognitive mechanism known as the Hyperactive Agent Detection Device (HADD). When you’re home alone at night and you hear a sound, chances are you’ve ascribed agency to that sound. Is there a burglar about to get me? Maybe that sound was a ghost? This is the HADD at work. Evolutionarily, we can see why HADD would be an adaptive trait to have (e.g.: it would aid in avoiding predators). The standard view in CSR is that religious belief originates, at least in part, from an overactive agency detection device; we just sort of naturally attribute agency to everything, including the universe.

A number of atheists (e.g.: Dawkins, Dennett, and co.) take this information and say that religious belief is therefore irrational or unjustified. But this is a mistake. On Christianity, Christian belief is not purely the result of a cognitive mechanism (even if it is in part). As mentioned previously, God plays a causal role in the production of Christian belief (see here for more). Without already knowing that Christianity is false, we don’t know that Christian belief is irrational or unjustified.

Evidence?

The sixth and final consideration from Loftus has to do with the kinds of evidence that can be used to decide between different faith traditions. Loftus seems to suggest that without propositional evidence, we have no way of “deciding” which religion is correct. Notice that this is basically just the de jure objection I’ve given above in the section on Reformed Epistemology. Here’s the argument once again:

(1) It is rational to believe in Christianity only on the basis of a good argument.
(2) There is no good argument for Christianity.
(3) Therefore, it is not rational to believe in Christianity.

Since I’ve already given Plantinga’s response to this argument, I’ll briefly summarize another approach. The Christian could deny premise two. She could argue that Christianity in particular has very good arguments in support of it. In defense of this claim, she might appeal to a cumulative case starting with cosmological arguments all the way to Bayesian-type arguments for Jesus’ Resurrection. I’ve argued for both of these in my own work (see the links).

So it seems to me that both premises of this argument are dubious; there’s no good reason to accept either one.

Final Thoughts

We’ve come to the end of my analysis of The Outsider Test For Faith. It’s apparent that none of Loftus’ considerations actually warrant skepticism. Epistemic disagreement doesn’t, geographical location doesn’t, belief origins doesn’t, the evidence doesn’t. Maybe Loftus has good reason to be skeptical about Christianity, but those reasons are not included in his infamous Outsider Test For Faith.


Notes:

[1] For a more robust defense of this, see my 4-part series.

[2] The standard view in CSR is that religious belief is a byproduct of evolution. Religious belief isn’t itself adaptive, but it was formed as a side effect of traits that were adaptive. Here’s a quick illustration. My fingers are adaptive. I can pick up and grab things with my fingers, I can perform complex operations (like fashioning tools), and so on. Now turn your hand over and look at the wrinkles on the back of your knuckles. Those wrinkles exist as a byproduct of your fingers. They aren’t themselves adaptive. Religious beliefs are like the wrinkles on the back of your hand.

[3] I’m using the term atheism in the traditional sense. An atheist believes that the proposition “God does not exist” is true.

About the Featured Image

When one thinks of Jerusalem (or even Israel), this is the picture that comes to mind. Shortly prior to taking this, Brittany, my wife, had the time of her life riding a camel for the first time (that was probably her sole reason for wanting to go to Israel so bad). I want to go back.

Total
0
Shares
Like 0
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
T A G S
  • Apologetics
  • Epistemology
  • Outsider Test
  • Reformed Epistemology
  • Street Epistemology
Cameron Bertuzzi

Cameron is a professional photographer and founder of Capturing Christianity, a ministry aimed at exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief. He is a writer, speaker, and uses his ministry to host discussions and interviews on Christian Apologetics. Cameron is married to a beautiful wife and is the father of two adorable children.

SUBSCRIBE. BE AWESOME.

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

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
wpdiscuz_captcharefresh
2 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Cameron BertuzziChrissillymuddle Recent comment authors
avatar
wpdiscuz_captcharefresh
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
sillymuddle
Guest
sillymuddle

I think both (1) and (2) are false. (2) definitely so. It says a lot about the psychology of atheists that just because *they* are not convinced that they jump straight to accusing others of being irrational. That’s not rational argument, that’s straight out social engineering.

We’ve lost the art of disagreeing: That you still have respect for people even though you have come to fundamentally different conclusions.

Vote Up0Vote Down  Reply
1 year ago
Chris
Guest
Chris

How that heck does God make the HADD reliable? How can God do that?!! That’s like saying God can make it that the case that drinking gasoline is healthy.

Vote Up0Vote Down  Reply
1 year ago
Cameron Bertuzzi
Author
Cameron Bertuzzi

Check out my series on how we know God exists (pay specific attention to Part 4 and the role of the Holy Spirit):

https://capturingchristianity.com/know-christianity-true-part-1/

Vote Up0Vote Down  Reply
1 year ago
about
Free 60-page eBook!
Join our super cool email list to receive a copy of our free 60-page eBook (and other cool stuff). Btw, Christianity is true.
Subscribe!
Recent Discussions
  • Hell Debate: Does the Bible Teach ECT or Annihilationism? Chris Date vs James Martin
    • January 17, 2019
    • 1.7K views
  • Two Philosophers Debate the Ethics of Sex – Tim Hsiao vs Benjamin Watkins
    • November 30, 2018
    • 702 views
  • the euthyphro dilemma
    The Euthyphro Dilemma, Matt Flannagan vs Jason Thibodeau
    • September 22, 2018
    • 1.1K views
  • Andrew Harland-Smith
    Is Molinism True? Andrew Harland-Smith vs John Limanto
    • August 24, 2018
    • 1.1K views
Trending Articles
  • Christianity, Religious Disagreement, and Equal Weight Theory

    • 2
    • 10 min
    • 2.8K
    View Post
  • Book Review: Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

    • 1
    • 8 min
    • 1.5K
    View Post
  • Have We Moved Past the One Gospel of Jesus Christ?

    • 1
    • 5 min
    • 1.3K
    View Post
  • CC014: Exploring the Contingency Argument with Dr. Josh Rasmussen (Part 1)

    • 9
    • 2 min
    • 1.1K
    View Post
  • Is Evolution Compatible with Original Sin? (A Thorough Analysis)

    • 0
    • 21 min
    • 936
    View Post
Twitter Feed
avatar
Cameron Bertuzzi
@CapturingChrist
308 Following
756 Followers
Here's a sneak peak of a project I'm working on... https://t.co/7PcPQVRHIV
2 hours ago
  • Reply
  • Retweet
  • Favorite
In case you've been wondering what to read next: https://t.co/1y45cJAJvN
2 hours ago
  • Reply
  • Retweet
  • Favorite
Jesus is alive, btw.
3 hours ago
  • Reply
  • 1 Retweet
  • Favorite
Follow
Follow Us!
Facebook 8K
Twitter 756
YouTube 2K
Instagram 564
Next Level Campaign

Help us become an official non-profit organization!

🔥🔥🔥 New blog post, fam! "Is Belief in God Falsifiable?" [Link to read full post in bio.] One story about what distinguishes science from some other human pursuits, is that scientific theories must in principle be falsifiable. That is, there must be some way that it could be possible to show via observation that they are false. This story is very popular among scientists, and also popular among the kind of people who claim to very much love science. 55 0
When I experience doubt, it’s usually tied in some way to sin. Battling the sin is a way of battling the doubt. What about you? How do you deal with doubt? 47 3
But for real this is super spicy. 74 3
Here’s an argument for God from abstract objects: (1) Mathematical truths depend on minds. 68 10
Meet professional philosopher and Christian apologist Dr. Douglas Groothuis. 90 4
Thoughts? 89 5

SUBSCRIBE. BE AWESOME.

Get updates on new posts, upcoming discussions, and more!

Follow Us!
8K
756
2K
564
Random Posts
  • Wade Tisthammer, Spencer Hawkins Discuss The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
    • 2 min
    • 2.2K
  • We Become Like What We Worship
    • 13 min
    • 2.4K
  • How did the Early Church Read Genesis 1?
    • 8 min
    • 1.2K
  • My ‘Street Epistemology’ Interview on Hey Pastor
    • 1 min
    • 1.5K
Topics
Advice (2) Annihilationism (2) Apologetics (73) Atheism (5) Atheology (3) Bible (4) Book Review (6) Contingency Argument (3) Discussions (2) Divine Hiddenness (2) EAAN (4) Empty Tomb (2) Epistemology (19) Evolution (2) Faith (5) Fine-tuning (3) Free Stuff (2) Genesis (7) God (5) Hell (2) Interviews (6) Jesus (5) Live Discussion (15) Mike Almeida (2) Moral Argument (12) Naturalism (3) Objections (3) Old Testament (2) Ontological Argument (3) Outsider Test (3) Personal (2) Philosophy (2) Plantinga (5) Podcast (4) Probability (3) Problem of Evil (2) Reformed Epistemology (11) Religious Diversity (3) Resurrection (7) Science (7) Street Epistemology (15) Textual Criticism (2) Theology (24) Tyler McNabb (3) Warrant (2)
Advanced Search
Calendar
February 2019
SMTWTFS
« Jan  
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728 

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

wpDiscuz