Book Review: The Outsider Test for Faith

Want to know which religion is true? Wish that someone did the hard work to develop a single method by which to judge every religion? Go no further, John Loftus will rid the word of religious diversity. Read his book to find out how! 

Given that I bill myself as a religion critic, when I find a methodology that might aid my endeavors, like John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith, I take notice. 

However, after analyzing this test, I find it limited. His test requires that you accept religious diversity as a serious problem that must be solved. 

According to Loftus, at best there can only be one true religion and joining for non-rational, or at least non-intellectual reasons seems to be a nonstarter for Loftus.   

Admittedly, his test is seriously damaging to two types of religious people; the apologist who defends the rationality of Christianity and fundamentalists. 

However, if you are neither of these the test is much less critical. (He admits this, though he thinks that pluralistic expressions of Christianity should be equivalent to not being Christian at all)

The Outsider Test for Faith depends on people caring enough to be strictly rational in their religious belief systems. 

For instance, Loftus and a fideist, someone that believes that Christianity should rest on faith instead of reason, would only end up talking past each other.

Summary:

• Religious geographic distribution is not uniform and religion is generally dependent on culture and non-rational or irrational thinking patterns.
• Religious diversity is a problem; at best one religion is true.
• The best way to test whether your religion is true is from the perspective of a skeptical outsider.
• It is obligatory that our beliefs be predicated on rational foundations, otherwise we base our beliefs on irrational premises.
• Religion is based on faith, and faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities.

Extended Critique and Analysis:

Loftus first proposed the Outsider Test for Faith on his blog www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com, but the version I will be discussing is in his book The Outsider Test for Faith: How to Know Which Religion is True.

                

His test is that every Christian, Hindu, Jew, and etc… should critically assess the truth or falsity of their religion like they assess the truth or falsity of other religions. 

For Loftus, religion (though not explicitly defined) is primarily belief in a supernatural God, gods, or force that is passed down through culture. 

The problem: Of these two components of religion (belief and culture), he only critiques religious belief systems, and instead of critiquing the cultural aspects of religion, he uses them to help conclude that the religion you learned on 'mama's knees' is likely false. He should treat both aspects in similar ways.

Think about this for one second, if, unlike Loftus, you focus on the culture aspect and also maintain that religious diversity is a problem then you are essentially trying to eliminate a type of culture from the world!!

However, Loftus and all of the critics of Loftus I am aware of only focus on debunking his test. Though, I should note that in terms of critiquing supernatural beliefs I am largely in agreement with Loftus, with one exception. I accept fideism as a legitimate epistemological option-- people can base knowledge claims on revelation. 

Fideism means that knowledge depends on faith or revelation. I would certainly place limits, admittedly derived from reason, on fideism (i.e. if someone's reveled faith goes against basic morality I would be the first to offer criticism. And there are certainly examples!).

(The exact nature of these limits will not be my focus here) 

Second, truth is defined as something that is extremely probable. Absolute truth is a nonstarter for Loftus, and for good epistemological reasons.

Since faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities and probability is all that matters for knowledge, faith is directly opposed to an honest search for truth.  

Opposite Loftus, I do think that fideism should be a live option. Though as long as this caveat is acknowledged, I don't have any problems with this conception of truth. 

I am not advocating one of these conflicting epistemologies, fideism and probabilism, over another, at least not here. 

When necessary I will critique religious (and atheist) epistemologies, but this is not my primary concern at present.  

My present concern is Loftus' theoretically uninformed and inconsistent theory of religion.

Theoretically Uninformed Theory of Religion  


Some scholars, do think like Loftus, that religion is primarily about belief. However, there are many other conceptions of religion.  

There are theorists who claim that religion is about morality (i.e. Karen Armstrong), that religion is dependent on material conditions, is oppressive, and the sigh of the oppressed (i.e. Karl Marx). 

Others argue that community/society (i.e. Emile Durkheim), or relatedly religion can be thought of as culture (i.e. Reza Aslan). 

These are just a few examples of possible theories and more are being created.

Loftus often claims that if many people disagree, then you should be less certain about your belief. Thus, he should critically analyze his presumptions about religion. 


Inconsistent Theory of Religion

There are two main parts to Loftus' conception: culture, (pg. 103), and belief in a supernatural God, gods, and/or forces (pg. 126).

I am going to focus primarily on the belief aspect. Loftus is at best unclear and at worst inconsistent on this point. 

Here are two quotes from page 126:

"There are even atheistic religions..."

And:

"... no matter how you define religion it must include the belief in one or more supernatural forces or beings, and atheists don't have them."

If there is a way to give these two quotes (on the same page) a consistent interpretation, I am lost as to how. 

Another Test:

Loftus' test is premised on a misconception and/or a confused conception of religion. 

I align myself more with the cultural or society camp when I think about religion. Thus, as a religion critic, I see religion as a part of and suffused with culture that should open itself up to critique. 

This culture includes belief, but it also includes rituals such as: weddings, funerals, birth, reintegration, rites of passage, and etc.... It also includes morality and can include positions on economy. 

Religion has touched almost every aspect of every culture at least indirectly.
   
Because my conception of religion differs greatly from Loftus', my test for religion is going to look a lot different, and he will not like it. 

Let's look deeper into his conception by asking whether music could be critiqued in a similar way according to his test. The short answer is no, but the reason is interesting.

First, he does discuss why moral/political beliefs probably cannot be assessed using the Outsider Test for Ideas (based on the Outsider Test for Faith) 

1) ethical duties generally have a world wide consensus, unlike religion 2) moral/political views do not make extraordinary claims, like religion does. And 3) morality and political structures are actually forced on us, unlike religion (at least in many cultures). 

Music like religion, does not have a worldwide consensus in terms of preferred styles (1) and music tastes are not forced on us (3). 

By and large music does not make extraordinary claims (2); however, I have already conceded that his test works for religious beliefs, if the goal is rationality.   

Consider this quote:

"When it comes to Christianity, I agree with the Protestant criticism of the Catholics as well as the Catholic criticism of the Protestants. I agree with the fundamentalist criticism of the liberals as well as the liberal criticisms of the fundamentalists. In addition, I agree with the Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish criticisms of Christianity as well as the Christian criticism of Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. When they criticize each other I think they're right" (pg. 200).

He uses this to suggest that all these traditions debunk each other and all he has to do is report the disagreements. Again this is great if you think of religion solely in terms of belief or are separating out the belief component of religion for analysis. 

However, lets imagine Loftus as a music critic (music after all is cultural, just as he admits religion is). 

Take a second to think about it. 

Here is what I imagine him saying:

"When it comes to the the punk movement, I agree with the 70s pop critics as well as the 70s punk movements criticisms of 70s pop. I agree with the criticism of rappers from the East coast and their criticism of West coast rappers. In addition, I agree with the country music, popular, operatic, and hindustani criticisms of ska."

Yes, this is silly! But intentionally so. I am trying to get you to think about religion in a different way. 

And if you follow this critique of Loftus, you should find that true and false are only applicable to one aspect of religion.

Thus, I propose a different test that I will likely refine later. The Outsider Test for Religious Group Membership. One aspect of this test would cover belief and would read simply: after critically examining the beliefs of this group I can reasonably join without compromising my own core beliefs. 

Again if you temper fideism with reason and are doing no harm, I have no problem 'punting to faith,' as Loftus calls it. But admittedly if you do punt to faith you are not actually taking his test.  

Other aspects of the test would include morality, community fit, and aesthetic considerations (i.e. do I find it enjoyable). But ultimately the person would have to create and weigh what was most important for them in a religious community. 

This test could have multiple outcomes: 

Maybe the religion you were born into doesn't work for them on a psychological level, then they can explore others or not join at all. 

Maybe your family, which is very important to you, all go to the same church and despite their doubts they suppress them to maintain this connection. And there is a conscious weighing of these factors. 

Maybe you are a true believer who have genuinely considered other religious options. 

You should also assess your religion on the basis of morality. Are you asked to do things that you are morally uncomfortable with, then leave. Are you uncomfortable with how the group talks about certain members of the out group, then leave. And etc.... 

Not taking all of these aspects (and more) into consideration and focusing solely on belief when considering religion is like writing about apple pie without mentioning the crust.

Bottom Line:

The Outsider Test for Faith should pose a serious problem for the apologist (the person who insists that Christianity is rational); however, it does not pose a serious problem for a fideist (they will not take the test). 

However, the bigger concern is that Loftus' test only adequately addresses the belief portion of religion and fails to adequately address other aspects of religion.   

He does think the belief portion supports the immoral and dangerous aspects of religion; but I am not convinced of this. 

Another analogy: bracketing out the beliefs of dangerous religions is like talking about guns without ammunition. 

I agree that beliefs are part of religion, but it takes groups of people to form a dangerous religion. 

There are group dynamics at play as well as beliefs for all types of religion and cannot just be dismissed as merely emotional reasons for joining a faith.  

DIY analysis I

Imagine yourself walking into a room and you know little about the people who designed the interior nor do you know a lot about their culture. Further imagine that inside the room there is a small gathering of people. 

What would you look for if you were trying to determine if this was a religious group or a religious event?


Take some time. 



No seriously a bit more.



Have your list?


Now let me describe the scene further. There is a table with various kinds of food. Sushi, various Chinese inspired dishes, meat balls, and a veggie dish. Beverages include many types of alcohol, water, coffee, and orange juice. 

You look around the room you see a woman wearing Minnie Mouse ears, another in a Hamburgler outfit, some guys in silly hats, and people of both genders dressed well. There are also young children most of which are dressed up in costumes as well, a cowboy, two toddlers as bees, a clown, and others. 

Along the walls you see about four of five bookshelves full of books, some of which are in English, some are in a language you cannot read, and some are a mixture. As you are taking this all in you are invited to join a reading. It is in a language you cannot understand, but you know just enough to catch an odd word or two. Including two which you know are proper names. 

People boo at one of the names. You notice that the loudest person booing was wearing a patriotic inspired outfit that was almost entirely red, white, and blue. 

The reading is very fast and there was some concern at the beginning that it would not be completed by sunset, though at the end you hear one person say that he had time to spare. You look out the window and its a heavily overcast day and already very dark, and you pause to realize that he probably knew the time of sunset in advance as you noticed he looked at his watch to determine this. 

After you leave this room, you see a jazz quartet setting up and they soon start playing. You sit next to a man in a suit and tie and bond as the music starts playing. He says one of the few words that you know in an unfamiliar language and you respond with the best pronunciation of that word that you can manage. 

Except it was supposed to be a toast and your glass was empty. You go up to get a drink so as to properly do the toast and he asks you to get a drink for him as well. You come back and do the toast. 

Some songs the band is playing you don't recognize at all, but everyone else in the room seems to. Some songs you do recognize and at one point you see a man dressed up as John Lennon dancing with another young man to a jazz version of "Come Together" by the Beatles. 

To be abundantly clear, you don't sense any romance, just two people having fun moving to music as a third man joins in and then children join, and then the man in a suit and tie that you were talking with joins in. 

Eventually after having a few drinks yourself, you decide to join in, despite the fact that you are in an unfamiliar group. 

People come and go in the dancing group. It was not your intention to convince these people that you were like them, but you did. 

Remember your list? Determine if this was religious.



Take your time, no rush.  




One more moment.





Alright. Have your answer?





If you are an astute student of religion you may realize that this is likely a description of Purim and you would be correct. Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrating the foiling of Haman's plans to kill all the Jews told in the Book of Ester. 

This is an actual account of my crashing of a Purim celebration at Jpulse. Thanks so much for welcoming me!!! 


To all readers: I am very curious about how you went about this exercise. Please leave comments. 

Pluralism and The Satanic Temple

I decided to post this on my blog. It was intended for print, thus the difference in format. I find The Satanic Temple to be fascinating and a great critic of certain interpretations of the 1st amendment. I am not a Satanist and they typically do not believe in a literal Satan. Before commenting please use your critical reading skills to pay attention to the motives and desires of The Satanic Temple.

Religious Pluralism and The Satanic Temple

The Satanic Temple (TST) is a politically motivated religious organization that opposes any policy that privileges any particular religion (a.k.a Christianity) over other religions. In America, TST has been so effective at settling freedom of religion disputes that Hermant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, has called them the nuclear option in church/state separation cases. Also, after distributing their coloring books in Central Florida, David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community, coined the phrase Lucien’s Law, named after the pseudonym of one of the co-founders of TST. It states: “governments will either (1) close open forums when The Satanic Temple asks to speak, or (2) censor The Satanic Temple, thereby opening itself to legal liability.” As long as all religions are denied an open forum, as in (1), TST is happy with the result. TST’s successes should result in more theological and social reflection about what successful pluralism entails, especially among Christians.

In 2014 TST commissioned a statue of Baphomet, an ambiguously gendered half human/half goat, who has served as a symbol of Satanism for decades. This statue was originally intended to be displayed at the Oklahoma State Capitol alongside a monument dedicated to the 10 Commandments. However, an Oklahoma State Supreme Court judge ordered the removal of the 10 Commandments monument, removing the need for TST to continue its suit. Meanwhile in Arkansas, Governor Asa Hutchinson signed a bill that would allow a privately funded 10 Commandments monument to be erected at the Arkansas State Capitol. In response, TST also petitioned the state of Arkansas to be allowed to place Baphomet there. There has been no final decision on when or where to place these monuments; thus, Baphomet’s temporary home is Detroit, MI, one of the strongest TST chapters.

In response to TST’s unveiling of this statue, Bart Barber writing for The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued that Christians should not try to win a monuments-and-statues race, every idol is a satanic monument, neither Jesus nor the apostles attempted to take down any of the statues dedicated to the Roman Gods, and that an angry response is TST’s intention[1]. This is not a good interpretation of their intentions. Their preferred response is not anger, but rather acceptance of minority religions, even those that are diametrically opposed to the majority. However, even this is better than Detroit minister David Bullock’s understanding.

Bullock, one of the most vocal opponents of the Detroit unveiling, stated: “…they [TST] now seek to pervert the notion of religious freedom by poisoning our city and culture in their attempt to elevate a demonic symbol.” This quote betrays a lack of understanding of TST’s pluralistic purpose. However, his misunderstanding is even more obvious when he claims that they were “kicked out of Boston, Oklahoma didn’t want them; they tried to put Satanic coloring books in Florida, that was shut down…[2]” With the exception of the attempt to hold a “Black Mass” in Boston, these cases were successful from TST’s perspective. Yes, they were blocked from putting a statue at Oklahoma’s State Capitol and were disallowed from handing out Satanic coloring books, but Christians were denied their monuments and literature as well. And appearing on “Let it Rip” with Jex Blackmore, the spokeswoman for TST, Bullock seems unable to comprehend the possibility of a religion without a supernatural God.

Bullock reacted with prejudice and did not attempt to correct this prejudice. He likely still would have opposed the unveiling; however, he did not attempt to understand before offering his critique/vilification. Also, the Detroit unveiling was always intended to be a private, not public event. Understanding Bullock’s reaction requires understanding his belief system. In his version of Christianity, demons are real and a statue dedicated to a demon would likely cause more demons or at least a satanic presence to be brought to his city. Bullock was thinking on a spiritual level and not about pluralism. And less devout Christians, Christians with less intense beliefs in the supernatural, and even some non-believers would likely have a similar “not in my backyard” response to the Baphomet statue. However, we should reflect on when religion should be allowed into the public sphere, because if a forum is open, your direct theological opponents may request access to the open forum.

People often have a deep seeded fear and respect for sacred things even if they do not believe in them. In 2000, Jonathan Haidt and Fredrik Björklund discovered even people who do not even believe in a soul are reluctant to sell it.[3] In the Harry Potter series, the prohibition against speaking Voldemort’s name is believable because virtually everyone has some idea what it is like to fear the name of evil. For much of the Western world that name is Satan. TST has chosen a title that most of people in the Western world fear.

And, at least in their choice of aesthetics, TST does little to dissuade from this initial impression. The TST held a ceremony at the Michigan State Capitol where they appeared with muted American flags and dressed in black gothic clothing while Blackmore, their spokeswoman, gave a speech that included a few repetitions of the phrase “Hail Satan.” On their website there is currently a parody of “Silent Night” called “Arbitrary Night,” complete with people dressed as goat men in honor of Baphomet. However, TST does not encourage belief in a literal Satan. Instead, Satan is a symbol of the Eternal Rebel opposed to arbitrary authority. Thus, they are choosing images and aesthetics that a predominately Christian nation would find disturbing. And this works well to close previously open forums that Christians had formerly dominated.

So how might we use these events brought about by the TST to reflect on pluralism more constructively? Not by dismissing them simply because they are Satanists. And not by calling them the enemy and fighting against their displays. A better theological and social response would be to reflect on their motivations and how, in a pluralistic world, religion should be conducted in the public sphere. Everyone should be ask the question: “If someone had the exact opposite religious beliefs as we do, how should we treat them when they enter the public sphere?”

---

[1] https://erlc.com/article/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue, accessed 1-25-2016

[2] Reported by Detroit’s 7 action news ABC on Jul 6, 2015.

[3] Haidt, J., Bjorklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. University of Virginia (Unpublished manuscript).

Spotlight on Orthodoxy III: St. Mary's Orthodox Church

St. Mary's Orthodox church is located in a formerly Unitarian church originally build in 1821, as a result the aesthetics are different than a typical Orthodox church. It's stained glass windows are Protestant, not Orthodox. It has sufficient pews for all parishioners, unlike some Othodox churches that only have a few pews off to the side. 

It does have, like all Christian Orthodox churches the standard Orthodox iconography: 

An example of iconography from Saint George's Orthodox Cathedral

Honestly, I was initially disappointed at the Western features of the interior, as I  but as Fr. Anthony Hughes told me later, this was an Antiochian Orthodox church, which often takes aspects from other versions of Christianity and incorporates them. And in this case, they did not want to destroy the history of the building; I very much appreciated this answer.

The interior does affect the tenor and the flow of the service. Pews mean less room for children to roam during the service and as such they had to stay closer to their parents and they often seemed bored.

At Holy Resurrection of the Cross, I saw children imitating the priest and interacting with other children at Holy Resurrection. This did not happen at St. Mary's

However, they provide more directed activities for children. For instance, they have childcare services for the service at least until communion.

The service was shorter than other Orthodox churches I have visited. Primarily this meant less standing. And like Holy Resurrection, it seemed relatively common to come to the service an hour or more late.

St. Mary's was racially diverse; they are pan-Orthodox, that is they do not tie themselves to one particular racial demographic (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and etc..).

As if to highlight their diversity they were celebrating Chinese New Year by having a "Chinese breakfast," and some children wore traditional Chinese clothing. This "Chinese breakfast" was around noon and mostly consisted of common dishes in most Chinese restaurants.

I happened to find myself at the table of the priest and his wife, the priest joked in service and again in conversation "what's more American than an Eastern Orthodox church having a Chinese breakfast. (I know some people who would disagree, but honestly, where else but America).

This celebration was in support of a translation project of the prologue of Ohrid, a compilation of lives of saints originally written in Serbian.  

I was able to speak to one of the people associated with this translation project He told me that they were also focusing on ordaining Chinese citizens so that they can have Chinese Orthodox priests in China, as it is difficult for non-Chinese priests to preside over a parish in China.

While conversing with some of the regular parishioners, I mentioned my observation that Orthodoxy seems to emphasize repetition more than most other versions of Christianity, Thomas who converted to Orthodoxy at seven years old acknowledged this aspect and elaborated on the bodily involvement of the repetition. 

When I compared this to Buddhist mantras, the priest emphasized that Orthodoxy is an Eastern (as opposed to Western) tradition.

At least one scholar agrees with this general sentiment. Huston Smith, a famous religion scholar, compared the repetition of prayer to mantras in Eastern religions. And I agree.

The Catholic Church may have similar services; however, they have never encouraged constant repetition of reading the Scripture as the Orthodox do, nor do they emphasize continual prayer with the same consistency as Eastern Orthodoxy.And the majority of Protestant churches do not have a single  church head that presides over all of that denominations churches (i.e. Patriarch or Pope). 

Bottom Line:

I genuinely like Orthodoxy and I can certainly see its appeal. So far the believers of Orthodoxy have been welcoming and thoughtful. It is experiences like these that really make me wonder if militant atheists have bothered to let believers describe their faith in their own words.