Loftus' "Outsider Test": Just Another Ad for Pepto-Bismol!

How ironic indeed that John Loftus recently advised us to “not be fooled on April Fool’s Day” after what he just fell for. Such is the level of his narcissism that he seems never to stop and think before he jumps into a swimming pool filled with double-edged razor blades.

But on the occasion of his April 1 post on his gratuitously useless “Outsider Test” – the latest version of the old “if you were born in Pakistan you’d be a Muslim” canard – it is also ironic that he makes a post that proves EXACTLY the point I planned to make in my next “official” post here – namely, that his Outsider Test is about as useful as the Mormon burning in the bosom. I had planned to post this around April 10, but since it’s so relevant now, why wait?

Yes: The Outsider Test is just Loftus’ version of the Mormon burning in the bosom.

How?

First of all, let’s review some stuff I wrote about that Mormon version of the Outsider Test:

**

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/insidejob.html

The inevitable result of such an epistemic paradigm will be on these lines:

If you ask for it, God will give you confirmation that the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, or van Praagh's stories, whatever) are true.

But what if I ask God and He doesn't answer, or says they are NOT true?

You either didn't ask sincerely or are being misguided. Try again.

I am sincere/I did ask again. The same thing happens.

Then....?

Then, what? The inevitable result is that the proclaimer of whatever internal witness must declare that the seeker is not sincerely seeking, or is not accessing the right source. Now it may be replied just as simply that a person who denies the relevance of evidence, i.e., pointing to a certain truth, is just the same either not sincerely seeking, or else is misguided. Practically speaking the internal witness could be of no more value than evidence, even if it is genuine. Indeed, since the internal witness is not accessible or open to investigation or argument (as would be things with an evidential basis) one might suggest that the internal witness serves an even less useful purpose than external evidences -- and indeed, offers more opportunities for people to deceive themselves.

**

How is Loftus’ “Outsider Test” no better? His quote speaks for itself:

”Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do.”

Ah…sniff. Eau de Narcissus, is that? So here’s what it boils down to:

If you read all John Loftus has read, it will give you confirmation that Loftus’ view is true.

But what if I read all those sources, and decide that Loftus’ view is NOT true?

You either didn't read sincerely or are being misguided. Try again.

I am sincere/I did read again. The same thing happens.

Then....?

Then, what? The inevitable result is that Loftus must declare that the seeker is not sincerely seeking, or is not accessing the right sources. Thus the Outsider Test is of no actual value – just as Loftus has been told time and time and time again on TheologyWeb. It’s just a cheap parlor trick with Loftus sitting at the table in his swami outfit rubbing his crystal ball (and despairing because he can’t find those three holes) telling us poor benighted schleps that we’d know better if we just bought his book bought his book. Bought his book.

The sad fact is that many of us HAVE read the same sources as Loftus – and in many topical areas, much, much more than he has – and we’re not convinced. The Outsider Test is, as I told Loftus from, Day 1 that I heard of it, a waste of time, and a diversion from the real issues of evidence.

By no means am I saying that one should not examine one’s presuppositions – but that’s old news, a subset of the evidence-sifting process, and the Outsider Test isn’t much more than Loftus’ vain attempt to repackage and sell something that was stale at the time of Thomas Paine.

That’s the hard truth, Loftus.

Deny this if you can.