andrewcriddle

I agree that this seems to be philosophy rather than Biblical Criticism, but, taking it as philosophy, it seems plausible to say, for example, that I believe in the legal equality of women to men because I was born in England, and if I had been born in Saudi Arabia I would probably believe differently.

This doesn't seem a particularly good reason to question the legal equality of women to men.

Andrew Criddle

John W. Loftus

I have had plenty of people disagree with me on several topics and have changed their minds one by one (not on all of them though). I specialize in doing this if possible. ;-) I just don't have the time right now here with you. Like I said, I'll post my paper after I read it at the EPS meeting. It'll be an edited version from my book. I think I have all of the bases covered and any base not covered I think I can come up with a response to it since the test is obvious and non-controversial.

John W. Loftus

Actually reading my defense of it? ;-)

Toto

I think Loftus' point is that the idea of the legal equality between men and women can be justified with rational arguments and is not as a matter of "special revelation" from the Bible or the Qur'an. (You probably have to follow the arguments of American evangelical Christians to appreciate this.)

Jayrok

Well, good luck to you John. Is the Outsider Test For Faith detailed in your book or is it a recent endeavor you chose to work on?

I remember some good discussions with you over at Tweb a few years ago. I wish you the best, although I'm not sure you'll be able to "change the world" of the faithful.

andrewcriddle

My point is that the subjective plausibility of these "rational arguments" will vary from culture to culture, in the same way as the subjective plausibility of "special revelation".

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Andrew - do you think that there is some universal standard of rationality?

This is not to say that different cultures might find different arguments more persuasive. But Loftus is arguing against Christian evangelicals who reject the use of rationality.

andrewcriddle

Hi Toto

I am quite sure there is a universal standard of rationality. (Fermat's Last Theorem is true in all cultures for ever.) Some Christian, regrettably, do reject rationality and I find this deplorable.

However, I regard many rational arguments as persuasive rather than strictly proving their point. And their persuasiveness will vary from culture to culture (as will other types of argument).

I think it would, if true, be a genuine argument against Christianity, that it is only plausible to those born into a Christian environment. However in this form the claim seems empirically dubious. The claim that Christianity is (mostly) implausible to those born into certain specific non-Christian environments is empirically true, but is not IMO an argument against Christianity in particular. This sort of argument tends towards a much more global skepticism.

Andrew Criddle

John W. Loftus

Yes, I remember you, and yes this argument is in my book.

John W. Loftus

Nope, not the way I argue, although, someone could extend it as you said. It's just that such a claim as a global skepticism is too large of a claim to defend. The larger the claim is the harder it is to defend it, you know. Besides, if I were to argue for something so outlandish to the Christian s/he would not even give me the time of day because I would've stepped outside the bounds of the things s/he considers reasonable. And that's not what I want to do at all. In fact, I think I know what the Christian would entertain and I know what s/he thinks is simply too far outside of those bounds. Since I know these distinctions they are giving me a hearing, a serious hearing, a thoughtful hearing.