An Atheist Defends Evidentialism

Firstly the Atheist explains what evidentialism is:



I believe there are other evidentialists liking this video long side of the Atheists evidentialists:

Did you observe some really large loopholes the Atheist is jumping into?

Other commentators certainly have.

One person even made a video responding with a few objections:



So the "evidentialist" atheist saw some of these objections and then attempted to defend evidentialism:



Firstly a small comment. The atheist asserts he is not making whatever assumptions he would like and then mentions assumptions he would like to make but is not. However this only proves he is making less assumptions than he would like to be, but he is still making a number of assumption that he does like. He contrasts himself with Theist Evidentialists who make a number of assumptions they would like, but less assumptions than they want. However none of this shows one assumption is better than another, which ought to be the case.

I post these two videos as an example of a good model to show how reality is oft assumed and represented in an evidenced based conversation in general. It is nearly always assumed that the burden of proof is on the one who makes an assertion (positive statement) therefore requiring evidence which is justification for possessing knowledge. Rather humans should begin on any possible common ground which would begin with axioms, properly warranted beliefs. It is often mistakenly assumed as a general rule of thumb that all beliefs require justification. There are millions of Christians who share a similar epistemology to our atheist friend sometimes unknowingly adopting evidentialism as the ipso facto approach or methodology to pursue in a productive dialogue or conversation with an atheist, or even a sound epistemology in general for those Christians who are aware of it.

I remember as a sixteen year old teenager, being asked in one of my very first encounters with an atheist: "What evidence do you have for your God?". I immediately began to explain how the universe required a beginning and therefore a transcendental cause, how creation required a creator, how a painting requires a painter, how many things appear to be designed and therefore show us a designer.

What I didn't know consciously was that the swing of burden of proof was shifted and then committed unto me. What I didn't know was that certain special types of beliefs do not require justification and therefore can plainly be called assumptions or presuppositions. What I didn't know is that all humans had these kinds of beliefs either, yet most were unaware of them. As René Descartes stated some types of beliefs are "self-evident", or at-least many beliefs rest on unjustifiable meta-beliefs.

I presented you these two videos so not only do you get an idea of what attitude atheists in general
adopt in a conversation with a believer but the underlying epistemology they utilize which at times is unfortunately either knowingly or unknowingly adopted by the Christian Theist. Between the years 2008-2014 I would of been some what impressed with these videos as an atheist, as it appears (as the video suggests) that evidentialism is some what self evident, it's part of our make up, our cognitive psychology as humans, our daily experience. I would believe it's rational to make these kinds of necessary assumptions and believe that all humans ultimately must share in this process with me, that simply adding God on top was either unnecessary or superfluous. Together as humans we can all take on the most basic weak assumptions and build out way to the top from the bottom so to speak.

To end this post, I don't plan on giving a highly detailed review or critique of evidentialism, rather I want to bring forth awareness and hope that my pressupositionalist (and other) readers will identify severe problems contained within the video.

He originally asserts that: "I exist" in the first video is self evident and can be known and inferred intuitively, while in the second video he classifies this as an assumption along with others. So I will assume since his second video is the accurate one, and that he views self existence as an assumption. But since he does not accept coherentism or verificationism, perhaps he actually holds both views and therefore is a consistent atheist by being inconsistent. The irony being: to be a consistent atheist is to be inconsistent.

Hence his three  basic presuppositions he makes, firstly I exist. Secondly something other than me exists (and therefore my senses are sometimes accurate) and finally physical evidence is the standard to determine what is a justifiable belief.

However at the end of the second video, he ends by saying:

"I think this is a sufficient amount of defense for evidentialism to justify moving on. If you would like to present an alternative epistemology that you think better explains justification, you're free to do so...but I think I've sufficiently justified evidentialism to the point we can talk about what happens when we apply evidentialism to the hypothesis of God (17:17)"

I would now like to just present a few quotation from his first video that may seem at odds with his conclusion.

"How do I know that anything outside of myself exists? How do I know I'm not just experiencing a dream? How do I know i'm not just a brain in a vat experiencing a computer simulation? How do I know that I myself, am not just a program in a computer simulation? The answer is: I don't. I don't know that anything I see or experience is actually real, I have to make a presupposition, an assumption (2:44)"

And:

"But without the presupposition that at least some of my perceptions are accurate I have no where to go epistemologically, without this presupposition it is game over. I maybe wrong, I may actually be a brain in a vat experiencing simulated illusions but I have no choice but to at least initially assume that I am not just a brain in a vat, If I want to go anywhere meaningful epistemologically. (3:58) 

And:

"Even for the purpose of defending the use of evidence, I have to use evidence (5:56)"

Hence none of his presuppositions have explanatory power, they are purely assumptive in nature, and none of them are justified, so I must disagree with his conclusion.

On his third presupposition (which he unjustifiably argues for using evidence) he sets a false dichotomy between evaluating God with evidentialism or rationalism, rather than using God as an initial presupposition that we have no choice but to use in evaluating these epimsteologies to begin with. He judges that evidence is the basis for math and logic and concludes rationalism will be eventually become obsolete:

"The learning process is extremely evidence based...in fact I suspect that evidentialism will win this argument precisely because it's the actual basis of human learning and rationalism isn't" 

Of course the actual basis of human learning, the fact that humans learn some truths via evidence as children has nothing to do with evidentialism or rationalism being true or false.