Thursday, August 6, 2009

Debunking “The Outsider Test for Faith”, Redux

Over at Debunking Christianity, John W. Loftus posted his “Outsider Test for Faith” with which he proposed that Christians should consider their faith from the “outside”.  Months later, it will seem a little like closing the barn door, but I had some thoughts about the subject in addition to the comments I made at the time.

My original criticisms were:

  1. The notion of “outside” is fallacious.  Although atheist and agnostics both like to consider themselves as have a truly non-biased viewpoint, but this is nonsense.  All “world views” make metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality. Even relying on rationality makes assumptions.  How do you validate rationality if you can’t make arguments?
  2. John argued that Christianity (and, after I pressed him, all other world views) should be judged by a “presumption of skepticism”.  The flaw in this thinking, apart from the hypocrisy of excluding non-religious world views, is that skepticism is not useful for deriving truth. Skepticism not a worldview, but it is, in fact, a belief, (the belief that something is not a fact). Can we find the truth about something by first assuming it is false. No. Michael Shermer reminds us that, “smart people, because they are more intelligent and better educated, are able to give intellectual reasons justifying their beliefs that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons.” Since our belief, the “presumption of skepticism”, is coming before the investigation, we will ultimately arrive at the false conclusion. Therefore, skepticism is a poor tool for evaluating worldviews.

But my reason for broaching the subject, again, concerns John’s main reason for proposing the “Outsider Test for Faith”.  Because the circumstances of our birth, parental and cultural, are strong factors in determining what world view we will adopt. Since there can only be one correct world view, any one individual will probably be born into a culture with an incorrect worldview. As far as this goes, I am in agreement with John, but right after that is where he goes wrong.

By “Outsider” thinking, you must first think the thing you think is true, is false, but where does this get you. But now you have to consider that truth, of the presumed falsity, of your original thought, is now false and round and round you go. Certainly, this is no way to get at the truth.  At no point in John’s article does he actually promote testing to see if a belief corresponds with reality. Perhaps his problem with this is, that testing beliefs for their correspondence with reality is right out of the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and that the Correspondence theory of truth, being part part of the Christian world view, should be judged by a “presumption of skepticism”.

Since world views cannot, and need not, be examined from “outside” of one’s own, another method must be employed. For an examination of word views and how to evaluate them, there are many sources that do a much better job of it, than I can do, here and now (probably ever).  One I will recommend is World of Difference, A: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, by Kenneth Samples.

I want to make a distinction  between doubt and skepticism.  As we go through life, we pick up a lot of background knowledge, some correct, some incorrect. So when we are exposed to a new truth claim, we, if we are considerate people, evaluate the new fact in light of our existing knowledge, and if the new fact does not seem to fit, we may doubt it’s validity. This is not skepticism, since our doubting is base on previous knowledge, even is perhaps we are not aware of it, and we can verify the new truth claim by examining it.  Skepticism, on the other hand, is not doubt, but an a priori dismissal, usually because it falls within some unpopular category. It is a prejudice. It is very difficult for a skeptical investigation to come to a correct assessment of a truth claim. Please refer to the Shermer quote, above.

In seeking truth, you can be skeptical, gullible, or considerate.  It is your choice.

16 comments:

  1. "Although atheist and agnostics both like to consider themselves as have a truly non-biased viewpoint, but this is nonsense."

    Where do you get this from? As an atheist, I would gladly admit that I am not without my own biases. That is entirely human of me.

    "Skepticism not a worldview, but it is, in fact, a belief, (the belief that something is not a fact)."

    From your link - skep⋅ti⋅cism–noun
    1. skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.
    2. doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, esp. Christianity.
    3. the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt.

    Where in this definition did you find that skepticism is "in fact, a belief"?

    "Since our belief, the “presumption of skepticism”, is coming before the investigation, we will ultimately arrive at the false conclusion. Therefore, skepticism is a poor tool for evaluating worldviews."

    This is rather silly. Skepticism is exactly what you would exercise if I told you I survived a fall from a 100 story building. You would be skeptical FIRST, then you would investigate, all the while still skeptical, then you would either determine (conclude) that I was telling the truth, lying, or I was honestly deluded into believing my claim, or you would suspend judegement until more evidence came to light. Your honest skepticism would not, should not, prevent you from coming to the correct conclusion as to the veracity of my claim.

    "By “Outsider” thinking, you must first think the thing you think is true, is false, but where does this get you. But now you have to consider that truth, of the presumed falsity, of your original thought, is now false and round and round you go."

    It has been a while since I read on the outsider test, but can't you proceed with the test by simply being open to the idea that the thing you think is true, may not be true? I have a feeling that you are making the outsider test demand what it doesn't really demand. You are kind of examining the outsider test for faith, from within the faith.

    ~A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
    -- Edward De Bono


    "Skepticism, on the other hand, is not doubt, but an a priori dismissal..."

    No! My skepticism toward the existence of the Christian God is the result of 25 years of bible belief, followed with the past 9 years of unbelief. My skepticism is the result of finding no evidence to support the faith I had. BUT!!!, I, as a non believer, am open to persuasion. I would gladly read, discuss, and investigate any and all claims that piq my curiosity.

    "...usually because it falls within some unpopular category."

    "Unpopular"? Do you think my skepticism concerning the Christian God is because that belief is "unpopular"?

    "It is a prejudice."

    That is a characterization that does not even warrant a response.

    My friend, some people, no, I would say most people are psychological incapable of applying the outsider test for faith. It would seem that you are one of those.

    r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi bob, (Your name was not capitalized in the comment, I mean no disrespect.)

    First of all, thanks for commenting on my blog entry and sorry about the delay.

    "Where do you get this from? As an atheist, I would gladly admit that I am not without my own biases. That is entirely human of me."

    You may, bob, but many consider a "materialistic" or "scientific" view to be a default view, by which all other views are to be judged, and that it not need be judged. My point is that all people hold to a worldview, and cannot get outside of it, they can only change it. We can consider the merrits of individual "facts", but out worldview is at the core of how we judge them. As we judge them, and are open to the reality of those "facts", our worldview will change.

    The closest that I could perceive John's worldview to be, or at least the position that, by which, Christianity was to be judged, was a "presumption of skepticism". So it was my understanding that he wanted me to be skeptical of Christianity, before I could evaluate its truth.

    So this leads me to skepticism, which I think is the nut of your objection (please correct me if I am wrong). At the heart of skepticism is unbelief. Unbelief is belief that something is not true. You would not say that you are an "unbeliever" if you did not have an opinion on a matter. You may say that you are agnostic, but not an unbeliever. Since skepticism is;

    2. doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, esp. Christianity.

    So, at least some skeptics are unbelievers, or, saying another way, believers to the contrary, but believers none the less. Does it help us if we retreat from “unbelief” and rather say we doubt? Perhaps, but there are no magazines called Doubting Inquirer or podcasts called Doubticality.

    If you told me you fell from a 100 story building and survived, and I was skeptical, I may not be open to other facts, like, you fell from the first floor, of the 100 story building or that you are a base jumper. You may even have been trying to trick me, and in that case my skepticism would have made me gullible, the butt of a good joke.

    So, I think it still is evident that skepticism is a poor indicator of truth and so “OTF” still fails. So why would I want to use it to test my faith?

    So what are we to do, we still want to get at the truth. Since Christianity make objective truth claims about the nature of reality, we should test these truth claims for there coherence with reality. This way there is no need for doubting or unbelieving, just testing.

    After 25 years of Christianity, you have found that there is “no” evidence? Do you mean that you do not believe that any of the claims that Christianity makes, about the nature of reality, are true?

    Again, sorry about the delay.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark, I have tried to post a response but it keeps telling me my post must be under 4,092 characters. I am pretty confident that it is not that long.
    Oh well.

    r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi bob,

    Can you put it up as two comments. I am eager to continue this disscussion.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  5. bob is fine. One less button to depress on the keyboard.

    Mark - "Although atheist and agnostics both like to consider themselves as have a truly non-biased viewpoint, but this is nonsense."

    bob - "As an atheist, I would gladly admit that I am not without my own biases."

    Mark - You may, bob, but many consider a "materialistic" or "scientific" view to be... My point is that all people hold to a worldview,...We can consider the merrits of individual "facts", but out worldview is at the core of how we judge them..."

    bob – Your explanation in no way minimizes, what I consider a false generalization of atheists. I am assuming that your statement was made based solely on your own biases, and not based on actual investigation by asking non believers if they “consider themselves as have a truly non-biased viewpoint,”. My guess is, if you had of asked us that question, you would have been unable to honestly make that statement.

    Mark – “Unbelief is belief that something is not true.”

    bob – I think you are generalizing again, and I can not agree with your definition for unbelief. Some people have no opinion (belief) concerning the existence of God. Perhaps they are agnostic. Perhaps they have never heard of God. They certainly do not believe the existence of God is not true if they have never even heard the claim that God exists, yet they do have “unbelief”, don’t they?
    I think what some believers do, in labeling unbelief as a belief, is an attempt to level the playing field by trying to, perhaps, show that “we all believe in something”. But the belief of believers and the “belief” of non believers are vastly different. Your belief (faith) is in the existence of something, namely God. My lack of belief in your God is merely my opinion or conclusion that I either do not know (agnostic?) if he exists, or I can reasonable conclude, based on the lack of evidence to the affirmation, that he does not exist (atheist?)

    Mark – “Does it help us if we retreat from “unbelief” and rather say we doubt? Perhaps, but there are no magazines called Doubting Inquirer or podcasts called Doubticality.”

    bob - I have in my hands a book, published in 2004, titled “Doubt, a history” by Jennifer Hecht. Some synonyms for doubt are: incertitude, skepticism, uncertainty. I think it is perfectly reasonable to use “doubt” and “skepticism” interchangeably.

    Mark – “If you told me you fell from a 100 story building and survived, and I was skeptical, I may not be open to other facts, like, you fell from the first floor...or that you are a base jumper. You may even have been trying to trick me..."

    bob - This is ludicrous. I am trying to determine, at what point or over what "truth claims", you may become skeptical. All you are doing here is muddying the waters by bringing up possibilities that I in no way intimated.
    I said: “Skepticism is exactly what you would exercise if I told you I survived a fall from a 100 story building...Your honest skepticism would not, should not, prevent you from coming to the correct conclusion as to the veracity of my claim.”
    Is there anything in my statement above that is incorrect or inaccurate? Is it not true that you would employ SKEPTICISM while investigating my claim of surviving a fall from a 100 story building? If you did view my story with skepticism, then your claim that “…skepticism is not useful for deriving truth…” would be hypocritical.

    Mark – “So, I think it still is evident that skepticism is a poor indicator of truth and so “OTF” still fails. So why would I want to use it to test my faith?"

    bob - While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, you have not demonstrated that your opinion is based on any facts. It actually seems to me that you are proving the necessity (and difficulty), for anyone to apply the OTF. No one said it would be easy.
    As to why you would want to use it to test your faith…well, obviously YOU would not want to.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark – “So what are we to do,...Since Christianity make objective truth claims about the nature of reality, we should test these truth claims for there coherence with reality. This way there is no need for doubting or unbelieving, just testing.”

    bob - I find this to be faulty reasoning. Are you actually saying that everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, should examine the “objective truth claims about the nature of reality” made by their holy book, not with doubt or skepticism, but by believing, expecting, that the claims are true, and by expecting that the evidence will eventually end in the confirmation of what they already believe? Is this really your method of reasoning?

    Mark, by all means, tell me how you would go about TESTING “truth claims for there coherence with reality”? How do you TEST the truth claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Vishnu is the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, who sustains and governs the universe, etc, etc?
    Is your advice to the worlds religious that they not look at the truth claims of their faith with skepticism, but investigate the truth claims with an attitude of belief, and the anticipation that they are true? Do you not see how utterly absurd it would be for a believer to “test” the truth claims (I would really like to know how you, personally, do that) of their faith, if they are going to go about it with the desire that they what they already believe will be confirmed. Can you not see that the outcome is already poisoned? Can you not see that the best way to investigate a truth claim is by being skeptical of the claim in the first place, or at the very least, to have little or no emotional stake in the outcome? It is common knowledge that a person who has an emotional stake in a religious belief lacks the objectivity to properly investigate the truthfulness of their religious beliefs. Please tell me that you can see that.
    This is just a guess, but I bet if you were falsely accused of rape, you would greatly appreciate it if the investigating officer was skeptical of the accusation while he examined the evidence. You would be worried if he actually believed the accusation before he started to investigate. You would probably conclude that SKEPTICISM was your friend at that point, and that the only way you would receive a fair trial was if some of the people involved were SKEPTICAL of the “truth claims” made against you.

    I think if you are honest, you will most likely admit that you would recommend the OTF to all those who do not believe as you do, but as for determining the truthfulness of your own faith, you will find it useless.

    Just incase you neglected to answer – how do we, you and me, “test these truth claims for there coherence with reality”?
    And let me also ask, what would be the best (most useful) viewpoint or attitude to have for this test - belief that the claims are true, or skepticism of those claims?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mark, I may be making a big mistake by assuming some things, namely your faith. I have no idea what you believe concerning the Christian God. So if I made some incorrect assumptions, talking to you as if you are an evangelical born again Christian, and you are not, please forgive me. I just made these assumptions based on some of what you have said.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi bob,

    I am a Protestant Christian, you are OK on that, but what I have said would not be different, unless I was a Post Modernist or New Ager. They, typically, do not share the belief that there is an objective reality, as does Judaism, Christianity and Naturalism.

    I don't think you need to assume that something is true either, you can see that in my blog entry, but ultimately we will have ideas about the truth, or falsehood, of something we are testing, before we test it, because of our world view. That is where we can get into trouble. Holy books are not exempt, in fact, the Bible is very clear that it's own truth claims are testable and it is good to test them. Naturalism also makes truth claims, they should be tested also.

    The belief in Vishnu is not a solitary belief, but part of a world view, Hinduism. We may not be able to test the existence of Vishnu directly, but Hinduism makes other claims. One is that the universe will end and then start again, and continue doing this. That type of cosmology (cyclic) can be tested. The Bible and Naturalist also made truth claims concerning cosmology. The Cycle, Inflationary and Steady State models (respectively) have all now been tested and we have a pretty good idea of which is true.

    Some things may be beyond our ability to test. The virgin birth could probably be confirmed with a simple blood test, but as far as I know, there is none of Jesus's blood left. Does this lack of blood automatically make the result false? But if your world view eliminates the possibility of miracles, which the virgin birth is purported to be, then you will have no choice, but to come to the conclusion that it is impossible. You haven't come to the conclusion based on the results of some test, you have only asserted that it did not happen because your world view disallows it. That is skepticism. If there were some blood left, why bother testing? It couldn't possibility be true. The world view say so! The belief/skepticism impedes the desire to actually test for truth. Skepticism hurts the search for truth, regardless of your world view. OTF still fails.

    I will need to take issue with a couple of the statements you made;

    “It is common knowledge that a person who has an emotional stake in a religious belief lacks the objectivity to properly investigate the truthfulness of their religious beliefs. Please tell me that you can see that.”

    I'm not sure why you would limit this kind of behavior to only people with a religious belief, but even so, their skepticism, of claims that are contrary to their beliefs, is what would cloud their objectivity, not their emotions. Their emotional stake may make them happy or sad, depending on the outcome, but it is the skepticism that will interferer with a proper investigation.

    “I think if you are honest, you will most likely admit that you would recommend the OTF to all those who do not believe as you do, but as for determining the truthfulness of your own faith, you will find it useless.”

    I ask the hard questions of my own faith, but I think you are skeptical of that, since I am still a Believer.

    Thanks for persevering in adding the comment. I really appreciate the time and effort you have gone to in commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You chose not to comment on most of my response, for you own reasons I suppose.
    I will just make a few observations.

    Mark – “…in fact, the Bible is very clear that it's own truth claims are testable…”

    I welcome a for instance of your claim, both a “clear” truth claim from the bible, and how you tested it.
    Waiting…
    Waiting…

    Mark – “But if your world view eliminates the possibility of miracles…”,

    Fortunately, my “world view” does not eliminate the possibility. No need for me to respond beyond that, I guess.

    Mark – “… you will have no choice, but to come to the conclusion that it is impossible. You haven't come to the conclusion based on the results of some test, you have only asserted that it did not happen because your world view disallows it. That is skepticism."

    Actually, no, that is not skepticism. That is what you want skepticism to be. Your characterization of skepticism is utterly false. Incorrect. How can one have a dialogue with another who has such skewed preconceptions about what the other believes, and will not be persuaded by an honest correction?

    Mark – “If there were some blood left, why bother testing? It couldn't possibility be true.”

    The words you are putting into my mouth create a very sad straw man.

    Mark – “The belief/skepticism impedes the desire to actually test for truth.”

    Incorrect.

    Mark – “Skepticism hurts the search for truth.”

    Incorrect. Merely your opinion.

    Mark – “OTF still fails.”

    Your opinion, and incorrect.

    Mark - I will need to take issue with a couple of the statements you made;
    “It is common knowledge that a person who has an emotional stake in a religious belief lacks the objectivity to properly investigate the truthfulness of their religious beliefs. Please tell me that you can see that.”
    Mark – “I'm not sure why you would limit this kind of behavior to only people with a religious belief…”

    Notice how you assume that my reference is limited to the religious? Had you of asked, I would also include conspiracy theorists of most stripes (911, Area 51, moon landing, etc) You have succeeded in placing me in a box that I do not belong in.

    Mark – “…but even so, their skepticism, of claims that are contrary to their beliefs, is what would cloud their objectivity, not their emotions.”

    May I utter a stunned “WOW”! I can only assume that you have been isolated from most of humanity for most of your life. You should probably take this up with a psychologist. My guess is that they would offer you a very different view on what clouds objectivity.

    Mark – “Their emotional stake may make them happy or sad, depending on the outcome, but it is the skepticism that will interferer with a proper investigation.”

    I sure would like to know what you have been reading…or did you think this up on your own?

    Anyway, good luck with all that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello bob,

    You are only, either, asserting that I am wrong about skepticism or providing examples of situations where you think skepticism would be good (based on your definition). But your assertions are not an argument and your examples fail because of your incorrect view of skepticism.

    To show me I am wrong, about OTF, you only need to do is:

    1. Show me that skepticism is not based on belief.
    2. Refute Michael Shermer's comments about belief.
    3. Show that there is the possibility of some viewpoint that can be objectively described as neutral (not having any presuppositions).

    BTW, since the ability of logic and reason to derive truth is a presupposition, you will have to use something else to prove #3.

    I do not really mean for my arguments to be directed at you personally, because, you are right, I do not know what you believe, or what your world view is. But even if I did, the blog entry was about OTF and my reasonings about its fallacy. Except in those places where I have quoted you, I really am not trying to attack your personal beliefs. If is coming out that way, I'm sorry. I'm still really glad, and honored, that you read my stuff in the first place and carry on doing so.

    Concerning the bit you were stunned about;
    You didn't really refute it, but I'll elaborate anyway.
    Do you think that someone is emotional about a subject first, and then they believe, or do they have, or get, beliefs that they then become emotional about? I think you have to agree that it is the latter. If this is the case, their emotions are felt as a result of challenges to, or agreements with, their beliefs. Without the beliefs, there is nothing to be emotional about.

    The people that have the strong emotions about a belief are the only ones that will investigate that belief. Lots of people will join churchs, UFO clubs, and skeptical societies. Not many "Dollar = 4 Quarters Club" meetings out there. It's the emotions that drives us to investigate, not the belief. Since the unemotional are not doing any investigations, that only leaved the emotional. And since new truths are being discovered all the time, it cannot be the emotions that hinder, but the beliefs.
    (I think I have made my point about emotion, but I am going to carry in with this chain of though, anyway)
    We all have beliefs, so it cannot be just having a belief that hinders. It must be a particular kind of belief.

    The ability to be objective, depends on the willingness to test truth claims that contradict held beliefs. The unwillingness to test comes from the perceived impossibility of the outcome of a test contradicting the held belief. The perceived impossibility (or possibility)of the belief, is also a belief. A belief about the held belief. Since we all believe our own beliefs are true, at least to some degree, and investigation continues, it is not our beliefs about our beliefs that hinder investigation. The only particular kind of belief left to us, to be the kind of belief that hinders investigation, is the absolute disbelief in the possibility of someone else's belief being true. Why would someone discount the possibility of some untested belief being true? Only if it was prohibited by their world view. The person holding such a view would be called a skeptic. If you wouldn't call them a skeptic, what would you call them?

    Did you not think that the cosmological predictions of the three world views I gave you were a good test to reinforce a world view? 4000 years ago Moses said that the universe had an absolute beginning to matter, space, time and energy. That is a testable truth claim. In fact, a couple of Nobel Prizes were awarded over that one.

    Except in those places where I have credited someone, these are all my own ideas. That is why I am glad to have a critic, someone to show the possible flaws and likely weaknesses in my arguments. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mark – “You are only, either, asserting that I am wrong about skepticism or providing examples of situations where you think skepticism would be good (based on your definition). But your assertions are not an argument…”
    Isn’t that what an argument is, assertions and examples?

    Mark – “…and your examples fail because of your incorrect view of skepticism.”
    Isn’t this just an assertion on your part? You are asserting that my view of skepticism is incorrect.
    I think your definition of skepticism is incorrect. I think you have claimed several times that skepticism “does not allow for the possibility”. I think this is incorrect. Can you show me how you are correct in your definition?

    Mark - "To show me I am wrong, about OTF, you only need to do is:
    1. Show me that skepticism is not based on belief.
    2. Refute Michael Shermer's comments about belief.
    3. Show that there is the possibility of some viewpoint that can be objectively described as neutral (not having any presuppositions)."
    Actually, I don’t necessarily disagree with those three points. But I do disagree that they bolster, or lead to your conclusion.

    I find it odd that you say I am not making an argument, and that to show you are wrong, I need to perform a certain task, but Mark, all you have done is make assertions yourself. I may not show YOU that you are wrong, but I still think that your conclusion(s) are wrong, namely –
    “…skepticism is a poor tool for evaluating worldviews”
    “Skepticism, on the other hand, is not doubt, but an a priori dismissal…”
    “It is very difficult for a skeptical investigation to come to a correct assessment of a truth claim.”
    All from your blog post. All you have done is assert. The reason I have not shown YOU that you are wrong is because YOU simply believe that you are right. It is very difficult for someone to see that they are wrong if they desire their current view to be right….hence the need for the OTF.


    ~Continued below~

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mark – “I do not really mean for my arguments to be directed at you personally, because, you are right, I do not know what you believe, or what your world view is.”
    I am not sure…did I intimate that I felt you were directing your arguments at me personally? I don’t feel that way.

    Mark – “Concerning the bit you were stunned about; You didn't really refute it, but I'll elaborate anyway.
    Do you think that someone is emotional about a subject first, and then they believe, or do they have, or get, beliefs that they then become emotional about? I think you have to agree that it is the latter. If this is the case, their emotions are felt as a result of challenges to, or agreements with, their beliefs. Without the beliefs, there is nothing to be emotional about.”
    This strikes me as so much dancing. This has nothing to do with your initial comment.

    You said - “…but even so, their skepticism, of claims that are contrary to their beliefs, is what would cloud their objectivity, not their emotions.”
    I am amazed that you, a skeptic of all the beliefs that are contrary to your own, can’t see that it is your emotional attachment to YOUR OWN BELIEFS that hinder you from critically examining YOUR OWN BELIEFS. You are a skeptic. You are just as skeptical of religion as I am. You Mark, are a skeptic of all that you currently do not believe.

    Mark - “The people that have the strong emotions about a belief are the only ones that will investigate that belief.”
    I don’t entirely disagree, but I probably don’t understand exactly what, or who you are referring to.

    Mark - “The ability to be objective, depends on the willingness to test truth claims that contradict held beliefs. The unwillingness to test comes from the perceived impossibility of the outcome of a test contradicting the held belief. The perceived impossibility (or possibility)of the belief, is also a belief. A belief about the held belief. Since we all believe our own beliefs are true, at least to some degree, and investigation continues, it is not our beliefs about our beliefs that hinder investigation. The only particular kind of belief left to us, to be the kind of belief that hinders investigation, is the absolute disbelief in the possibility of someone else's belief being true.”
    I don’t disagree.

    ~Continued below~

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark – “Why would someone discount the possibility of some untested belief being true? Only if it was prohibited by their world view.”
    I still don’t disagree.

    Mark - “The person holding such a view would be called a skeptic.”
    Now I disagree.

    Mark – “If you wouldn't call them a skeptic, what would you call them?”
    I am not sure. Perhaps a fundamentalist? Perhaps a believer? I think our problem is a matter of definition. Like some Christians define atheist as someone who hates God. You define skeptic as someone who “discounts the possibility”. I am a skeptic. I do not “discount the possibility”. Mark, if I consider myself to be a skeptic, and I don’t “discount the possibility”, am I a skeptic? If not, what am I?

    Again, you said above - “Why would someone discount the possibility of some untested belief being true? Only if it was prohibited by their world view.”
    Yes. Many, if not most Christians will for ever discount the possibility that their God may be a myth, because considering that as a possibility is prohibited by their world view. It is not their skepticism of skepticism that prevents them from investigating, but their desire to maintain their current beliefs. It is their “insider” attitude that prevents them from performing the “outsider” test.

    Mark, it seems to me that the view you attribute to skeptics, one of outright dismissal, is actually the attitude of “insiders”, or believers. Believers routinely dismiss, outright, the possibility that the God they believe in, may be mythical.

    If my son claims that the traffic light at the corner is out of order, I don’t doubt his claim. I am not skeptical of his claim. I don’t automatically discount his claim. For I have seen, with my own eyes, many out of order traffic lights. The only reason I would doubt his claim is if my son has shown that he is prone to lie, even about the most mundane of life’s experiences, or he has show to be delusional. But even then, since his claim is of a common occurrence that I have experienced, I really would have no desire to investigate. I would see no need to investigate.

    ~Continued below~

    ReplyDelete
  14. Now, if a Christian claims that the God they believe in healed them of cancer, I would be skeptical. I would automatically doubt their claim. Why? Because I am skeptical of such religious claims. I have absolutely no way of investigating such a claim though. I can’t interview the God they claim healed them, can I? I have no way of finding out if their claim is true or not. But, I, as a skeptic, would not rule out the POSSIBILITY that their claim is true. I would probably just tell them that I doubt their claim because I have never been presented any fact based evidence that the God they believe in, exists, let alone heals people of cancer. And since I have heard of people, both Christian and atheist, recovering from cancer, and I have heard of people, both Christian and atheist, dying from cancer, it is perfectly reasonable for me to be skeptical of the claim that God healed anyone of cancer.

    Mark – “4000 years ago Moses said that the universe had an absolute beginning to matter, space, time and energy.”
    HUH???

    I am at a loss as to how to continue Mark. You want me to refute your assertions as if they are concrete facts. You have not even begun to refute the OTF, but merely offered that you see it as useless for the investigation of truth claims. From my perspective (opinion, belief, world view, what ever) all you have done is offer your opinion, of which I disagree. You have not offered concrete facts that I need to investigate. Some claims just need a little contemplation in order to dismiss.

    But, I remain perplexed as to how or why you, a skeptic, who probably has used the OTF numerous times while investigating the truth claims of other religions, can’t recognize the necessity of skepticism when confronted with a truth claim in your own religion?

    There is so much I would like to say, but thoughts present themselves, then evaporate before I get them typed out.

    Can I ask you to please tell me your testimony? I’m not asking for all the specifics as to what lead you to your initial faith, I would just like to know what were the truth claims that you were made aware of, and why or how you came to accepting them as true.

    When I became a believer, at the age of 17, back in the mid 70’s, the truth claims presented to me was that I was a sinner, and that Jesus died as a sacrifice for my sins, and that in order for me to escape the eternal punishment for my sins (hell), I had to accept Jesus’ sacrifice and allow his spirit into my life. I had to become a believer and follower of Jesus.

    ~Continued below~

    ReplyDelete
  15. Can you tell me how your experience differs from mine?

    What I am hoping to discuss is your recommendation:
    a) Should I have been skeptical of these truth claims, and investigated them before I became a believer?

    ~OR~

    b) Should I have become a believer, then immediately started to investigate the truth claims?

    I really would like to know your answer.

    Mark, I was a believer for 25 years. It was not until I considered that non belief was even an option, that I began to look at what I believed, from the “outside”. It was not until I considered atheism as an option, that I tried to look at what I believed from the view of an atheist. It was not until I began investigating as an outsider, or skeptic, that I began to realize that the foundation of my faith was entirely emotional, and that all my previous investigations were not actual investigations, but were merely attempts to confirm what I already believed.

    Some of my beliefs did change somewhat while I was still a believer. At one time I held to firm Baptist doctrines. I believed in storehouse tithing, baptism by immersion, the trinity, and others. Through “outsider testing”(before I even knew of such a thing), I investigated those doctrines and came to doubt their validity. I stopped believing that there was biblical prescription for tithing as a member of the New Testament Church. I stopped believing that baptism by immersion was biblical. And I stopped believing that the doctrine of the trinity was clearly taught, and a necessary doctrine.
    All of these retreats came when I hade been a believer for about 10 years, and had been a member in Baptist churches. What prompted me to investigate was the truth claims of others, and my ability to be skeptical (view from the outside) of what I had believed for so long.

    Let me ask you:
    a) Why was I, a Baptist Christian, persuaded by the arguments I read.
    b) Why were other Baptist Christians not persuaded?

    I have concluded that it was my predisposition to skepticism that led me to investigate these truth claims. My skeptical attitude gave me the ability to accept the possibility that what I had believed for so long may have been incorrect, untrue, false.

    Mark, you said in an earlier response: “So what are we to do, we still want to get at the truth. Since Christianity make objective truth claims about the nature of reality, we should test these truth claims for there coherence with reality. This way there is no need for doubting or unbelieving, just testing.”
    I think your statement is rather vague based on wishful thinking. You do not address the FACT that the believer, by being a believer, will most likely not “test”, and if they do test, it most likely won’t be without bias. A religious believers bias, or desire to maintain his current beliefs, will influence how he views the evidence he collects as he performs his test of the truth claims. His bias will even influence how he tests (what he reads). Many Christians believe that reading Lee Stroble is testing truth claims.

    Mark, sometimes the only way to make your point is by example. So I still welcome you to offer me a “…for instance of your claim, both a “clear” truth claim from the bible, and how you tested it.”

    I do enjoy our dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi bob,

    I have had some surgery and been away for a while, but I do want to respond to the comments as they pertain to the OTF issue. I would like to discuss the others, but I do not think this is the best place for that. Is there some forum that you frequent where you would like to take up some of the other issues?

    Mark.

    ReplyDelete