Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?

[Freedom of thought]

I don't know about this specific counter-argument, but every time I hear about how awesome one of Plantiga's arguments is, it turns out to be total bullshit. In fact, I can think of plenty of evidence to believe in other minds, and that second part about about the verifiability of the external world and the fallibility of our senses is hardly a blow against evidentialism. It's actually a plus for skepticism and all the more reason for empirical evidence to be necessary, two things Mr. Platinga abhors.

The man appears to be less a philosopher than he is a justifier of his own pre-conceived beliefs, and I have seen nothing from him that wasn't just a bunch of hot wind. And no offense, but the fact that you take him seriously makes me wonder if you truly are an atheist.

I don't take him too seriously, but when I see a convincing argument against a position I have to take it seriously, in fact I laughed at his argument against evolution+naturalism. He has a horrible understanding of the evolutionary process. Keep in mind, Plantinga isn't trying to prove god here, or argue against atheism, but a position called evidentialism, that all beliefs must be substantiated by evidence. Even many atheists reject evidentialism, and I might go to reliabilism or weak evidentialism if I can't find any good replies to his arguments against evidentialism.

---

It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.

Would you please describe which of Plantinga's arguments you feel was most effective in doing so?

Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief.

Really? It seems to me that we DO have such evidence. Direct experience of our own minds coupled with indirect experience of other minds.

Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?

This would actually be a good point if it didn't lead to solipsism, the most useless idea ever.

I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide.

It's a desperation tactic. 'There's no evidence for God but we want to claim it's reasonable to believe anyway! What can we do? How about...we say it's okay to believe things without evidence because we can't prove reality is real anyway!'

How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance.

I think you gave in too easy on the 'other minds' thing. Evidence isn't proof. You can't prove there are other minds, but there is evidence for them.

You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?

Good questions, but if you accept that belief without evidence is justified, you can believe anything without justifying it at all.

You have evidence of other minds? I'd like to see that. I don't think it's provable by evidence that other people have conscious experience, but we believe it anyway. Also, we can prove that other humans have cognitive abilities, I'm a physicalist so I think that consciousness is a product of cognition, but I'm having a hard time seeing how we could actually prove with evidence that is the case. I've tried arguing with evidence found from neuroscience that our consciousness is the product of physical processes, but they won't budge. He says that just proves 'actions' are depended on brain activity, not that that physical processes actually give rise to consciousness. I think it logically follows from physicalism that if we can prove a person has cognitive functions, this proves they have consciousness. But I'm having a hard time trying to prove physicalism, and this religious person I am arguing with is not even trying to make a case for a soul.

Of course this sort of thinking leads to solopsism, but that's the entire point of the argument. How can you accept evidentialism, when you have no evidence you exist apart from referring to your own conscious experience? Is it not circular to do that? It seems to me, if this is the case solopsism is a product of being an evidentialist.