Not exactly an idea original to John Loftus, but you’ve already pointed this out. Maybe that’s the only value one can sift from the Outsider Test.

For example, a Jewish guy whom I befriended while visiting Mises University mentioned in passing how he could “rip apart the New Testament.” Don’t you think that his arguments are worth listening to?

Your contribution here adds another great aspect to examine the suggestion under – the salvation through Christ rather than Christianity, and what that entails and says about our world and about the situation being discussed.

For myself, I tend to add another aspect: I may not be specifically Christian, for example. But overwhelmingly (and certainly when taken in a more historical context) I would either believe in some manner of God, reject naturalism, and a host of other things which would at the very least strongly support taking both God and religion very seriously.

It’s similar to the problem I have when the argument that ‘Why should I believe in Catholicism? There are hundreds of millions of catholics, sure. But also hundreds of millions of muslims and hindus, and they all disagree!’ Well, yes and no. There’s quite a lot that muslims, hindus, and catholics would agree on, and the points of agreement are on questions of tremendous significance. The disagreements are real, and certainly extremely important. But so too are the points of agreement.

I understand, but lots of people have been doing precisely that for a long time.

Another subtle point is that the Christian faith, at least according to St. Thomas, is an infused virtue. It’s created by grace as much as by natural study. It may be impossible to doubt the faith without losing it altogether. In other words, becoming genuinely skeptical of your faith is a dangerous project, because you are defying the influence of grace.

Therefore, it may be advisable for a Christian to adopt the motto “faith seeking understanding.” If Islam and Judaism and so on have notions of grace, the same attitude is recommended. Then upon a thorough investigation one can even eventually convert from one faith to another. Moreover, if trying to “understand” can move you from Christianity to Islam, then it can also move you from Christianity to, say, deism. But this won’t be a violent destructive transition, as Loftus’s radical skepticism must needs entail, but a much more gradual and smooth one.

So, even Loftus’s method is flawed.

John can answer for himself, but I would like to make a few comments. You wrote:

Loftus’s argument, while true, is toothless. It impels people to go to the beginning in justifying their faith, and in that it has merit. But it fails, if its purpose is to condemn all religions merely for the undisputed fact that “now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor 13:12).

The test in and of itself does not condemn any religious faith, but it does ask you to examine your own faith in the same light and skepticism as you would examine other faiths that you reject. For Christianity the test would ask: is Christianity true, what is its basis, can it stand up to close historical scrutiny, is the Bible historically reliable, etc. John’s contention is that if you objectivity approach Christianity with a level of skepticism and examine its claims then you would most likely reject it as he has (and I have too, see my Why I Left Christianity. Now, it is possible that one could take the outsider test for faith and reaffirm their Christianity.