On a night Stygian black, Sigurd
Doomhammer, a Viking and a neo-druid, prayed to Odin and pleaded the
Allfather to heal his friend, Hrolf Breakspear, who is sick and
bed-bound. Hrolf took some medicine, and on the next day he
miraculously recovered from the illness.
After Sigurd discovered his friend's
miraculous recovery, he prostrated himself on the floor and
exclaimed: “Allfather has answered my prayer and healed Hrolf! Odin
be praised!”.
The answered prayed from Odin
strengthened Sigurd's faith in Odinism.
However, Sigurd's Christian friend,
C.S. Druis, disagrees.
C.S. Druis: “Odin did not answer your
prayer.”
Sigurd: “Then who answered my prayer
and healed Hrolf?”
C.S. Druis: “The medicine healed
Hrolf”.
Siguard: “Hmm, then you should apply
the same explanation to your own Christian prayers, too. Last time,
when your friend, John Linux, was sick, he took some medicine and you
prayed to the trinune god of Christianity. The next day, John
recovered and you also claimed the triune god of Christianity
answered the prayer. Therefore, if you say Odin did not answer my
prayer and Hrolf was healed solely by the medicine, then the same
explanation should be applied to your Christian prayer too, that your
triune god did not answer your prayer but it was the medicine alone
that healed John Linux!”
C.S. Druis was stunned into a momentary
silence. After giving it some thoughts, Druis replied: “Ok, then I
tell you, a demonic spirit known as Odin answered your prayer, to
deceive you into worshiping the false god.”
Sigurd: “Where is your proof that
Odin is a demon? Come to think of it, I say Yahweh is a demon. The
reason he answered your prayer and healed John Linux, was to
deceiving both of you into worshiping the false god of Christianity!
You should repent of your sins and come back to Odin”.
On the clock, awkward seconds passed,
and C.S. Druis finally uttered: “Hmm, then I tell you, it was not
the medicine alone that healed Hrolf, and it was not Odin who
answered your prayer. It was Yahweh who answered your prayer despite
the fact that you prayed to the wrong god”.
Sigurd: “Really? Then this means,
Yahweh, despite knowing that I was praying to the false god, and
knowing that an answered prayer would only strengthen my faith in
Odin, yet Yahweh deliberately answered my prayer anyway, and deceived
me into believing Odin answered my prayer. If this is your god, then
you need to reconsider what sort of god would deliberately trick
people into worshiping the false god, then punish them for it.”
C.S. Druis: “Ok, then what about the
numerous times when your prayers weren't answered? What about the
time when your wife, Freya Shattersword, died from cancer despite
your sincere prayer to Odin? Surely, the inconsistency between
answered and unanswered prayers is an indication that Odin doesn't
exist and he never answered your prayer at all?”
Sigurd: “If I pray and Odin does not
answer it, then it simply means the things I prayed for is not in
Odin's will. The way of Allfather is not my way, but above my way.
Odin is the wisest, he knows all and he knows the best. Furthermore,
as a viking cum neo-druid of 30 years, I have had personal
experiences with Odin, and I know he is good. Therefore, I have faith
that Odin works for the good of all those who worship him. Hail to
the one-eyed Allfather! But come to think of it, your Christian
prayers are often unanswered too, so what is your explanation for
unanswered Christian prayers?”
C.S. Druis, red in the face,
ejaculated: “Damn you, Sigurd Doomhammer! You just stole my
argument for unanswered Christian prayers!”
STOP
I hope you found the narratives (above)
entertaining. Why did I bring the mock debate to an abrupt end? Well, for two reasons:
Reason A:
I see no point continuing the mock
debate, because it could continue for a LONG time. Let me just give
you one possible scenario where the debate could go next; C.S Druis
could have retorted with a defense similar to Sigurd's and ward off
the question of unanswered Christian prayer, then Druis could proceed
to quote that Yahweh has a specific nature (dubbed nature X) that
Odin doesn't have, then say to Sigurd, because Odin doesn't have
nature X, so Odin is not the true god. Upon hearing this, however,
Siguard could have retorted with the same argument, saying that Odin
has nature Y, and since Yahweh doesn't have Y, so Odin is the true
god. At this point, an outsider observes that both sides are
committing a logical fallacy called “begging the question”. That
is, assuming a premise P in their religion is true, then ask the
competing religion to demonstrate premise P. When the competing
religion fails to demonstrate P, conclude the competitor is wrong. In such a
logically fallacious argumentation, all religions can just beg each
other questions, and none of them can ever demonstrate definitely
which belief is true. It would be a stalemate! It would be a
fruitless and a pointless labor!
Reason B:
The mock debate was just a case in
point, when religions debate each other, they have no objective
method to show who is right and who is wrong. I'd wager, 99% percent
of the time, whatever argument made by one religion, can be used by a
competing religion too. If we put an apologist for every religion
known in the world in one room and ask them to debate which religion
is the truth, they would reach a status of mutual paralysis, a
stalemate, where none of them can prove each other true or wrong.
This is the point I was driving, and I think I have made the point
clear. So there is no need to continue with the mock debate.
Therefore, if you would excuse me for
killing the fun, I would like to jump straight into my book review.
Today, I am reviewing a book titled: “The Outsider Test for
Faith”, written by John Loftus.
Who is John Loftus? A former Christian
apologist, Mr. Loftus was also an ordained Christian minister until
he left Christianity. He studied under William Lane Craig, a famous
Christian apologist. But Mr. Loftus changed his mind about
Christianity, and he became an atheist. John Loftus has written a
book called “Why I became an atheist: A former preacher rejects
Christianity”, I have not read Why I became an atheist,
but apparently in that book Loftus detailed his journey from a being
preacher to being an atheist.
Although 2 years has passed since I
deconverted from Christianity, but until this August, I have never
read a book about religious skepticism. Why did I begin to read books
on religious skepticism? This is because I was interested at finding
out if there are ex-Christians out there, who deconverted for similar
reasons to mine. This is why the title, The Outsider Test for
Faith, captured my attention. For I too, searched for a way test
my own religious faith as an insider, and it was the major reason
that led to my deconversion from Christianity. My own journey to
deconversion took 18 months. It was a traumatizing journey. It was
heartbreaking. During that time, I thought deeply about my religious
faith. I was constantly deep in thoughts. I critically examined every
aspect for Christianity, from history, philosophy,
hermeneutics/theology, theodicy, textual criticism, and science. It
was a time when my entire being was utterly consumed by the search
for the truth. To give you an example, I remember one day, while
walking down the road, I almost got hit by a car because I was so
deep in thought about the inconsistencies between the 4 Gospels. It
suffices to say, I took the search for truth very seriously. I was
determined to let the truth guide me even if the truth is not what I
thought it was. At the end of it, the truth dragged me, kicking and
screaming into non-belief. Perhaps, my story shall be told one day.
For now, however, let me continue to review this book.
What is the outsider test for faith,
and why is it important?
An outsider test for faith, is simply
to testing your own religion as if you were an outsider to it. It is
to testing your own religion by using the same standard of skepticism
that you applied to the religions you do not believe in. No
faith-based skepticism is allowed. Sounds easy, right? I tell you,
this is easier said than done. In this book, John Loftus outlines
very simply and beautifully, how this can be done. But let me just
say, in order for this test to work properly, self-honesty and
courage are keys. A religious believer needs to be brutally honest
with him/herself if their religion actually passes the test. In order
for the test to work properly, one needs to be courageous and honest
enough, to let the truth lead you where you should go, even if the
truth is not what you think it is.
But why is it important to test your
religion? John Loftus argued for the importance of having an
objective testing method, by invoking A) The Religious Diversity
Thesis, and B) The Religious Dependency Thesis.
What are these? I am sure most people
have observed, in the past and the present, ten thousands of
religions exist in the river of human history. Most of these
religions are mutually exclusive. They all claim to be the truth, but
they contradict each other. This also means, not all religions can
be the truth. Most likely only one of them is true, or none of them
is true. This is called The Religious Diversity Thesis (RDVT).
Next, we have also observed, people's
religious beliefs depend on geography and culture. If you were born
in the Middle East, then you are likely to become a Muslim. If you
are born in America, then you are likely to become some sort of
Christian. If you are born in East Asia, then you are likely to
become Taoist/Buddhist. This is known as The Religious Dependency
Thesis (RDPT).
Given both RDVT and RDPT, we arrive at
the following conclusion: 1) Not all religions can be true, they are
mutually exclusive, most likely one of them is true, or none of them
is true. 2) Since your religious belief is likely determined by the
geography/culture you were born into, then given 1), your current
religion is likely false.
So how can you know your religion, or
any religion, is true? Surely you would need an objective method for
testing your religion. Otherwise, you could easily land up in the
infinite, but fruitless debate similar to the mock debate that I
constructed at the beginning of this review. Yes, this is why The
Outsider Test for Faith is important. And John Loftus tells you
how to do it. Read this book if it sounds interesting to you.
The question is, do you dare to take
the test?
Post script:
I need to mention, this book is VERY
repetitive. This is because Loftus was addressing the various
objections against The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). Whatever
objection you have about OTF, Lotus has most likely addressed it in
the book already. This is the reason for this book to be repetitive.
Personally, I enjoy reading them
nevertheless, because I think Loftus did an excellent job at refuting the strange excuses that Christian apologists made up to protest
against OTF. Furthermore, Loftus correctly pointed out the
unreasonable demands made by Christian apologists. For example,
Loftus correctly observed, Christians often demand to see their faith
is impossible before they will even consider it is improbable. Loftus
hammered the nail on its head for this one. Why? I have observed the
same unreasonable demand from Christian apologists too. Let me give
you an example. A famous Christian apologist called John Lennox once
debated Michael Shremer, who is a sceptic of great renown. At the end
of their debate, a member of the audience asked John Lennox a
question:
“What will change your mind about
Christianity?”
John Lennox replied, “The historical
evidence that Jesus didn't rise from the dead will change my mind about
Christianity. My faith is based on historical evidence”.
Woah, that sounds very intellectual and
academic, isn't it? Well, let's think carefully about Lennox's reply.
What kind of historical evidence can actually prove that Jesus didn't
rise from the dead? A Christian once said to me, if an ancient
document surfaces, and testify that Jesus didn't rise from the dead,
then Christianity will fall apart. Really? I think even if such an
ancient document do surface, Christians will just proclaim such a
document is not credible. And rightfully so, how can a piece of old
paper with writings on it, be serving as a definitive proof that
Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Meanwhile, some Christians told me,
if the body of Jesus surfaces, then they will abandon their faith.
Hmm, really? We do not have the biological or anatomical features of
Jesus, so how will you know a pile of bones belong to Jesus?
In other words, in reality, there is
almost no way a historical evidence, be it an ancient document or a
pile of bones, can ever be used to successfully argue against the
case of resurrection. John Lennox is asking to be shown his faith is
impossible. Lennox might just as well say “nothing will ever, ever
change my mind about Christianity”. See? Christians will demand to
be shown that their faith is impossible before considering it is
improbable.
On the other hand, I think we can say
Christianity is false because of the many errors, failed prophecies,
and contradictions in the Bible (and a lack of good evidence to support the Bible's claims on supernatural events). But the problem is, Christians just
re-interpret the Bible to sweeping all these problems under the
carpet so they can continue to believe. The funny thing is, a friend
of mine once demonstrated, you can apply the same modus operandi that Christians are using to re-interpret the Bible, to outside of religion and resolving error and contradiction in ANY verbal or
written statement. In other words, if we apply the astonishing way Christians are treating the Bible, consistently, to outside of Christianity, we will be arriving at a bizarre position where error and
contradiction do not exist at all - nothing will be wrong and everything could be right; and by its extension, everything can be believed and rejected.
My friend and I had similar thoughts about this. Indeed, this was where my journey to deconversion started 3 years ago
when I realized, with the way I was treating Christianity, even if it
is wrong I still wouldn't know it is wrong.
Enjoy reading John Loftus' book, I
think this is a beautiful piece of work for religious skepticism.
Until the next time, happy reading!
