Many religious sceptics are quick to disregard the existence of God on the grounds that, for one, its possibility becomes illogical when confronted with reason, and secondly, it lacks evidence to support its position. It will be my argument to reject these so called weaknesses of theism on the grounds that one is justified to take belief in a Deity through means of faith. I will argue that the atheist and agnostic's reliance on the evidentialist theory does not constitute a strong case in denying a Deity. In taking this path, I will be shedding light on some of the predicated assumptions that evidentialism is built on. My hope is that t

"My only consolation lies in the reflection that, however bad our posterity may become, so far as they hold by the plain rule of not pretending to believe what they have no reason to believe...they will not have reached the lowest depth of immortality."[2]

his argument will persuade the evidentialist to, at least, re-evaluate her unrestricted confidence in the supremacy of reason, especially in deciding on matters of the abstract unknown.

It can clearly be seen how beliefs such as these cut through the heart of religious dogma, and shackle the right of one to consult his or her emotional desires. The both of these philosophers clearly appear to, not only contest acting in absence of evidence, but also passionately feel that in doing so, one is committing the most appalling of all intellectual errors. In the evidential notion, of the only justifiable beliefs being those of ample evidence, there are many problems. I shall take this opportunity to unmask a few of them.

It should seem attractive to both the atheist and the agnostic to act on belief only in the presence of evidence, but the reality is that the evidence cannot always be found. One cannot investigate every belief, but this is not to say that the important ones cannot be sought after. So would be the case when it comes to dealing with speculative abstractions, such as God. Now the evidentialist might reconsider her position. Perhaps she might refine evidentialism as only seeking investigation when dealing with paramount beliefs, rather than all beliefs. Of course in doing this, a method of differentiating between vital beliefs and idle beliefs is required. I shall assume, for the sake of argument, the evidentialist miraculously succeeds in doing this. I will also assume that forming a belief on the existence of a supernatural Deity is considered paramount.

To some, it may seem the wiser of choices to believe neither A, nor B, but instead take a position on the fence. Does one really have to believe A or B? Can't one just sit stale to the both of them due to the absence of evidence? This may be the intelligent decision when dealing with idle decisions, but when it comes to deciding between two significant propositions, I for one, would not want to pass up the opportunity in discovering significant truth.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Overcoming Evidentialism, Mount Everest, William James, Product Faith, Impracticality Evidentialism, Agnosticism Faith, North America, Socrates Evidentialism, Oh Clifford, Notions Clifford's, existence god, atheist agnostic, reasonable evidence, educated person, pursuit truth, absence reasonable evidence, absence reasonable, sufficient evidence, car safe, absence evidence, evidence support,
Approximate Word count = 2698
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)