This is not a test

"The Outsider Test for Faith" is a recent title by John W Loftus. The author is a former Catholic and ex-evangelical who has written or edited a number of atheist books. His main claim to fame is something he calls the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). In this book, he defends and expounds on the concept. I admit that I wasn't convinced, primarily because the OTF presupposes materialism and atheism from the start. Or, as Loftus prefers to call it, "science", "reason" and "methodological-naturalism".

The OTF is rigged in advance so that Christianity can't pass it. This becomes obvious at ppg. 92-93, where Loftus rejects seven criteria for rationally evaluating experience (religious or otherwise), proposed by one Keith Yandell. The criteria are pretty trivial, and include the usual provisos about adequacy to the facts, logical consistency, the necessity of avoiding ad hoc hypotheses, etc. Loftus believes that Christianity can't pass Yandell's test, but he is worried anyway since Yandell (who was a Christian) would argue otherwise. Loftus also says that the faith of Mormons and Scientologists could pass the test. Therefore, something stronger is apparently needed! I think Loftus' objection to Yandell's test is that Yandell was neutral towards the supernatural. He only spoke of "well-established data", "phenomena within its relevance" or "counterevidence", never specifically about methodological naturalism (really atheism and materialism). This is the loophole Loftus wants to plug, right from the start. Supernaturalism simply isn't *allowed* to pass the OTF.

Another problem is the parochial (pun unintended!) and "Euro-centrist" character of the OTF, which is really directed at conservative and fundamentalist Christianity. One of Loftus' main background arguments for the OTF is the fact of religious diversity. Logically, according to the author, *one* religion, at most, can be true. Indeed, they can all be false. Given the large number of different religions, not to mention sub-groups within each of them, what are the statistical chances that evangelicalism is true? While this is indeed a problem for evangelical missionaries, it's not necessarily even an issue for most of humanity. Classical polytheism doesn't deny the gods of neighbouring tribes, peoples or kingdoms. It simply doesn't worship them (except sometimes - witness the Romans who often incorporated foreign gods into their belief system). Many Japanese are both Buddhists and Shintoists, many Africans combine "animism" with Islam or Christianity, and an increasing number of Westerners experiment with different spiritual paths. Only *one* can be true? Why? Maybe they are all true, in some sense. Or maybe a good number of them are. To Loftus, evangelicals should be sceptical of their own religion because of religious diversity and hence "take the OTF". Indeed, religious diversity seems to be one of Loftus' main arguments against all religion and in favour of atheism. However, it's difficult to see how this follows, unless you are still stuck in a kind of pseudo-evangelical thinking yourself.

The anti-Christo-centric character of the OTF can also be seen on Loftus' arguments against "faith". In his view, faith cannot pass the OTF. Faith is an irrational belief in something despite the lack of evidence, even against available evidence. ("I believe because it is absurd".) While Christian theologians would deny that this is the Biblical view of faith, it can hardly be denied that many Christians have exactly this position. Egregious examples can be found on the web. But what about religions that are more experientially-based? Do Eastern mystics have "faith" in this sense? Do Christian mystics? Did classical polytheists? Once again, the OTF turns out to be a form of anti-evangelical polemic, not necessarily applicable in other contexts. Incidentally, I wonder why Loftus rejects all forms of faith with equal vehemence? The author says that we are always dealing with probabilities, but surely that means that certain forms of faith *are* more rational than others. For instance, faith in the Chinese economy is more rational than faith in the American ditto. Why can't faith in god X be more rational than faith in god Y? To Loftus, this question can't even be posed, since the OTF is based on the idea that gods don't exist in the first place!

That the OTF is based on the presumption of atheist materialism can also be seen from Loftus' debate with David Marshall (a Christian author and Amazon reviewer). Marshall believes that Christianity has passed the OTF many times, due to the large number of Christian converts throughout history. I admit that this is a somewhat naïve argument, since most converts to Christianity were involuntary, forced into the fold by Byzantine emperors, Carolingian monarchs or Spanish conquistadors. Besides, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism have also been missionary religions. However, Loftus main counter-argument against Marshall (which works equally for voluntary, semi-voluntary and involuntary converts) is that people who choose one religion over another are simply irrational. They are "superstitious people", period. Thus, only people who become atheists count as having passed the OTF!

Another problem is Loftus' typical denial that atheism is a "worldview". No, he says, it's simply the lack of belief in the supernatural, etc. Really? Since the existence or non-existence of a spiritual dimension is surely *the* most basic issue facing Man, it's naïve (at best) to claim that atheism is just a benighted and bemused non-belief in the supernatural. This is really a modern "American" conception, typical of a society where each individual can choose to believe or disbelieve in whatever combination of claims he sees fit, or change opinion once a week, without any particular consequences (or so they imagine). Imagine an ancient Greek philosopher claiming that he simply doesn't believe in Pallas Athena, neither more nor less! Something tells me his fellow Athenians would have different ideas about it... While it's true that atheism in abstracto isn't a fully-fledged "worldview", neither is supranaturalism (think of all that religious diversity). However, atheism is virtually always the bedrock of a more all-encompassing worldview. This is obvious in the case of Marxism and Freudianism, but surely atheism in general will have consequences for how the individual feels, acts and reasons in different circumstances. Why *shouldn't* it have such consequences? Does Loftus *really* believe that atheism is simply belief in one entity less, considering that the OTF is based on "science" and "methodological" naturalism? At one point, Loftus says that one can't predict how an atheist will vote or take a stand on the economy, but one can't absolutely predict that for Christians, Muslims or Shintoists either, *simply* based on the fact that they believe in certain supernatural entities. (Most American Muslims who voted in 2000, choose Bush!)

Ironically, the OTF is at one point actually too "soft" on the true believers. Loftus calls on Christians to subject their faith to scientific scepticism, since that's how they evaluate the claims of all other religious faiths. This may be true for a minority of high-brow intellectual apologists, but it's hardly the case for the vast majority of Christian believers. How many American evangelicals are familiar with the higher criticism of the Koran, or the minutiae of Mormon history? They really are "superstitious people". The OTF comes across as an intramural conflict between two groups of intellectuals, one Christian and the other atheist.

Strangely, I agree with many of the concrete criticisms Loftus has of "traditional" Christianity. (An entire chapter of the book is devoted to such.) I also agree that scepticism about pretty much everything is legitimate. We are indeed dealing with probabilities. In contrast to the author, however, I believe a test should be neutral between naturalism and supranaturalism (although I admit that might be hard to do!). At the very least, it should not presume that atheism-materialism is the automatic default position, or that all issues can be decided by "science" in the naturalist sense. At one point, Loftus has problems scientifically proving that rape is immoral. Of course he has. Rape can have Darwinian survival value! Why did those nefarious Israelites of the Old Testament indulge in it, I wonder? There's nothing properly basic about atheism or materialism. Of course, Loftus (if I understand him correctly) believes that the OTF does *not* presume atheism or materialism, but I don't think his denial is very convincing. Witness his worries about the Mormons and Scientologists above.

Two final complaints. One: with the exception of the first chapter, the book is quite badly written. Two: Why on earth is Juche considered to be a religion?! Juche is the official ideology of the North Korean regime. Must be the only "religion" ever cracked literally nobody believes in! No need for OTF there.