Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.
DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.
PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
extraordinary revelation has not occurred.
DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
matter of faith.
PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.
DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
themselves be proved"
PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
our beliefs.
DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".
PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
to do until proofs come along.
DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
theistic claims are based on assumptions.
PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
in degree. That is a difference in kind.
Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.
DUNS: ?????????