John Loftus' The Outsider Test Of Faith.

Mr. Loftus’ fourth chapter is without a doubt his most compelling in his book, ‘Why I Became An Atheist.’ The attack on Christianity and religion in this chapter goes by stating that the biggest factor in accepting religion in general and Christianity in particular is the sociological factors, which are the influence behind all humanities decision to follow religion. 

The argument goes in whatever may be the dominant religion in a country or culture a person is born into, that will naturally be the religion that is adopted. Henceforth Mr. Loftus argues that this simple observation should entail scepticism of religion. 

Mr Loftus as an Atheist asks the apologist to explain this undeniable observation if he/she can. At the outset this problem can be strengthened by looking, from the Christian perspective, to the theories of salvation. What I mean by this is that if Christianity is true then its adherence is either by choice (the Arminian/free will position) or the total sovereignty position (the Calvin/predestination position). In either case it would appear from this observation that people choose God based on where they were born or more damningly God saves people in accordance with geographical and ethnic discrimination. 

Before I offer my own particular explanation of this evidence for scepticism it is worthwhile to note that Mr Loftus anticipates five possible objections for this evidence for scepticism.

1. In small case people for other cultures adopted other religions.

2. This does not invalidate religion just demonstrates luck.

3. This argument suggests self-defeatism for if culture affects religion then it also must affect scepticism.

4. The Outside Test of Faith commits the generic fallacy of irrelevance. 

5. The argument is circular for the same reason as number three.

Now whilst Mr Loftus fails to answer the first objection the other four do not hold enough weight to contribute to dispelling it. 

But before we progress further there is an epistemological problem with this evidence for skepticism in the Outsider Test of Faith. The reasons being is that the ‘The Outsider Test of Faith’ or OTF is powerful as an outsider however not as an insider. Furthermore Mr Loftus again relies on the assumption that the Christian has the burden of proof in this example and indeed in this test. For example, Mr. Loftus does not even tackle the Bibles very prediction of this phenomenon in Romans 10:14-17. The apostle Paul states that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from preaching. Consequently one would suspect little Christian faith in a country where it is illegal to preach Christianity. Such is what we find at the moment giving rise to geographically placed Christianity specifically. For other religions this may not be the case, however Islam shares a similar salvational policy to Christianity in this regard. Mr. Loftus wants to Christian to step outside and consider this position yet he has not stepped in to Christianity and the Bibles statement and explained that prediction.   

Furthermore Mr. Loftus’ evidence for his argument needs far greater research behind it for it to have any significant force. Mr. Loftus argues from the general to the particular. However there is no discussion about comparative religion and cultural heritage. For example Lord Rama’s bridge was left untouched not because it was considered religiously true by the authorities but rather that it was part of India’s rich cultural heritage (for more see Lord Rama on this blog). For Mr Loftus’ argument to carry the weight he will need to define what one considers as part of the culture and what ones considers as a legitimate religion. Of course this will only weaken Mr Loftus’ case as it will become evidently clear that many of the examples given under the guise or religion are actually just cultural throw backs to antiquity, Like Lord Rama and his bridge. For example do we measure Greeks who read Virgil as adhering to religion? If not why not according to Mr Loftus?

Lastly however there is the most problematic position that if Mr Loftus wants the Christian to take ‘The Outside Test of Faith’ then surely he must ask the Christian to take the 'Insider Test of Atheism', or ITA. Meaning, showing why atheism makes sense and why people should not adopt skepticism towards atheism as appose to Christianity. Such a test would include proving miracles do not exists, beyond a shadow of a doubt; a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, and the undeniable reasons why all religions (not just Christianity) should be disregarded. Indeed ITA would prove rather interesting placed alongside OTF, something Mr. Loftus fails to do in his book and on his blog.

Essentially what we have here by Mr. Loftus is a straw man observation for skepticism; it is based not on careful research or years of geographical experiential insight into cultural diversity but rather on a something that he appears just to have read about in some books. Not really a strong premise for skepticism. 'The Outsider Test of Faith' demonstrates a weak case (a case nonetheless) for skepticism but not a strong of even any case for atheism. Mr Loftus simply leaves this out. Which seems bizarre considering his book is titled 'Why I Became An Atheist.' Why would he rarely give one. I would suggest a more honest title for his book, 'Why I am not a Christian' as oppose to 'Why I am an Atheist.' Is it possible that Mr. Loftus is actually seeking justification for Atheism as oppose to reasons for adoption of Atheism?