Just the Facts, Ma'am

The Great Urban Legend Of Our Time

Evidentialism is the doctrine that demands everything one believes must be adequately grounded upon evidence. If no evidence, then belief is irrational.  Whenever we come across such sweeping, grandiose assertions, we find ourselves driven to ask, "By what evidence does that assertion hold true?"  Pray, what is the evidence for evidentialism?  Eerrrr.  Ummmm.  More time, please.

David Berlinski is on to it when he writes:

It is wrong, the nineteenth-century British mathematician W.K. Clifford affirmed, "always, everywhere, and for anyone, to  believe anything upon insufficient evidence."  I am guessing that Clifford believed what he wrote, but what evidence he had for his belief, he did not say.  [David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  (New York: Basic Books, 2009), p. 47.]

Fast forward to the Great Collider in Europe.   Naturally, this Collider is most famous because it is the biggest.  Twenty-seven kilometers of underground tunnel to house the great beast--all in an effort to research the tiniest particles in matter.  The biggest to find the smallest.  Looking for evidence.  So that the evidentialist can believe.   But what constitutes evidence?  Instantly, the "picture" becomes exponentially more complex, and less evidential, we may say.

Universal Acid

Explanations Come to an End--Somewhere

One commentator animadverting upon the post entitled The Unintended Consequences of Homosexual "Marriage" had this to say, after quoting from the post:

"The endgame is that only Christians and the Christian faith have certain and solid foundations for knowing anything. Only Christian epistemology is rational and coherent and true. Everything else is sinking sand."

Thats (sic) a conceit of enormous proportions John. Besides, putting the words "rational" and "coherent" any where (sic) near the bible or the word "faith" is oxymoronic.

Our trusty commentator, xchequer is naturally talking up his own book here.   He alleges that the "Bible" and "faith" represent a contradiction in terms with "rational" and "coherent".  Alleges, mind you.  Not argues.  Nevertheless what he says is a helpful illustration of the all-to-common mindset of Unbelief: shout loudly, slur your opponents, and never go near a rational argument. 

We, for our part, have alleged that all non-Christian epistemologies are sinking sand; only Christian epistemology is rational, coherent, and true.  It's a strong claim.  Nevertheless, it's one we are prepared to argue for.  Rationally.

A Shot of Faith to the Head

Evidentialism is Quite Dead

We have just picked up a copy of Mitch Stokes's A Shot of Faith {To the Head}(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012) which is a well written, very approachable piece of work on the intellectual battle against the Christian faith being waged at a neighbourhood near you.

The work makes the philosophical contributions of men like Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff accessible and useful to the wider Christian community.  (For their part, Plantinga and Wolterstorff have, in turn, been making Scottish philosopher, Thomas Reid accessible to modern readers.)

Here is an initial excerpt: