The Outsider Test For Faith

Hey Bo :)

This is Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF):

“With the OTF I’ll argue that we should adopt a skeptical predisposition as best as possible prior to examining the evidence, if we adopt any predisposition at all.

My argument is as follows:

1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis.

2) Consequently, it seems very likely that adopting one’s religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree. This is the religious dependency thesis.

3) Hence the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.

4) So the best way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths. This expresses the OTF.

The OTF is primarily a test to examine religious faiths […] The OTF is no different than the prince in the Cinderella story who must question forty- five thousand people to see which girl lost the glass slipper at the ball the previous night. They all claim to have done so. Therefore, skepticism is definitely warranted.” (The Christian Delusion)

In response, a friend of mine wrote:

"Think about the Cinderella analogy for a second. Does the prince need to question all the girls who make the claim? Could he not just stop when he finds Cinderella? Do I need to test every religion, or can I stop when I find the one that ‘fits’?

But anyway, onto the test. Would an outsider be convinced by the evidence for Christianity? Well, what is the evidence? As I’ve said before, the authors so far have largely ignored the specific content of Christian belief, and especially the central gospel story. This is where the ‘evidence’ lies, namely 1. The startling innovations from Judaism in Jesus teaching 2. The strange circumstances of his death 3. The authentic nature of the accounts of people witnessing an empty tomb and risen Jesus 4. The way the church as a movement and its associated ideas grew in the early stages. Together (plus a few other things), these facts point to the general veracity of the gospel accounts and the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah, who rose from the dead.

Would an outsider believe this conclusion (granting for the moment that the facts are true)? Well, maybe. An agnostic might become suspicious, but just as easily explain the facts away. An atheist would think it rubbish, since people don’t rise from the dead. An ancient Greek would think it useless, since who on earth would want to be resurrected? A Jew would think it blasphemous to think the Messiah would be crucified, likewise a Muslim to think a prophet would be crucified. A Klingon would think it risible, since God would certainly become a Klingon, not a human. An extraterrestrial from Xenophon Gamma IIV would not find it convincing, since their minds operate so differently to ours that the words ‘convince’, ‘believe’ or ‘knowledge’ do not apply. Do you see what I’m getting at? Every outsider would reject Christianity because they are an outsider, because they already reject it for their personal reasons. Just which outside position should I choose? It seems almost like the diversity of outsider positions starts to put the test itself under the same problem as the religious diversity thesis.

But aside from this, so what if it fails the test? Or passes the test? It does not surprise me that Loftus is a qualified engineer, since this is exactly what an engineer would conceive of to test the truth of a story. But Christianity does not stand or fall on an engineer’s test. It stands and falls on an ambassadors test, where a person comes into contact with a foreign emissary, and asks Where are they from? and Can I trust them? It is the test of one person with another, not one system against a formula."

What do you think of his response?

Kind wishes :)

What Loftus is describing is the cornerstone of science: skepticism . Based on how you presented Loftus' position (I have not read his work), I see nothing unique outside of good scientific inquiry. Loftus' proposal appears to be about determining the truth value of a claim, whereas your friend appears to conflating this with what is called satisficing , or finding a "good enough" solution.

Do I need to test every religion, or can I stop when I find the one that ‘fits’?

Regardless of being true, if it "fits," it simply means it works for that person. We don't date every single person in the world before we choose a spouse—we discontinue our search when we find one that "fits." Of course, the irrational will claim that they found their one and only "soulmate" (who just happened to be in their same high-school out of a world of 7 billion people). In Cinderella terms, fairy tales and foot deformities aside, there are many feet that will fit a shoe.

The central problem with religious belief that is being described here is found in motivated reasoning . When one is highly motivated toward a conclusion, the reasoning process is severely hampered by the person's inability to evaluate the strength of evidence. To a die-hard theist, a sunset is strong evidence for God. Christianity (most forms) creates this motivation through eternal paradise or eternal torture. A scientist, or anyone really interested in the truth, needs to be indifferent to the conclusion. With this indifference comes clarity and the ability to evaluate evidence in proportion to claims. We might be able to sum this up in the quote by Sagan who says, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," where those who engage in motivating reasoning go by the rule "as long as the extraordinary claim supports my conclusion, any level of evidence will do."