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.