Is evidentialism justified?

[Stempy]

I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.

And why isn't your observation an assumption?

Err..because I was observing the way you apply criteria in what you have written. If it was an assumption, I wouldn't have gone to all the bother of talking about your application of criteria.

It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.

I don't think you're understanding what I mean by the question being relevant. By 'relevant' I mean, in this context, 'having to do with the possibility of justification". I claim that it isn't always relevant, because it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it* (you confirm this when you talk about self-awareness below). In order for the question to be relevant, you need to show the contrary.

*This view is known as particularism, for those who have not come across it.

I don't require justification for skepticism just as I don't need to know why I'm self-aware, I just know THAT I'm self-aware

If you know that you are self-aware then that rather contradicts your (apparently global and iterative) skepticism. And to say that you "just know" that skepticism is true is beneath someone such as yourself who is well capable of recognising a self-defeating statement.

A tautology means something is what it is.

You have shown me elsewhere that you are a big fan of dictionaries. I'm sure you can find one that gives this definition. The Law of Identity (which applies to all things) is a tautology - but it makes no sense to then say that "all things are tautological". It's a category error - propositions can be tautological, but not "things".

---

Because of course no atheist philosopher has ever made a case against evidentialism or skepticism.

Is that a baseless assumption?

Only dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads would resort to such a pitiful thing as logical argumentation rather than trivial rhetoric, name-calling and straw men.

Is that a baseless assumption?

It's called sarcasm, as made clear by my use of blatantly false statements.

---

The question for this thread is "Is evidentialism justified?"

Pragmatically justified or epistemically justified?

Epistemic.

That's logical regression you are proposing here, which is just as absurd as trying to apply the scientific method unto itself.

Evidentialism is a claim about when beliefs are justified. As evidentialism is itself a belief, it is perfectly reasonable to apply it to itself.

The scientific method is a way of going about studying the physical world. Since the scientific method is not part of the physical world, it is absurd to apply it to itself.

Emperical evidence? What sort of evidence are you after?

Evidence of any sort. The evidentialist thesis leaves open what counts and does not count as evidence.