Why "Religious people are just nuts" is easier said than defended

Repeatedly in this blog I have stated my position that religious belief is properly basic, meaning that it is rational, justified and (if true) can constitute knowledge absent any defeaters. While I have thought I was getting through to my atheist readers, I have discovered recently that a number of them remain as perplexed by this supposition as ever. Thus it is time to take a step back, inhale deeply, and begin a more systematic treatment of the issues.

In order to provide a context for the current discussion, I will begin by recounting the bulk of an interesting exchange I had with AnAtheist.Net in the threaded discussion to my post "Am I a Christian due to historical accident?" The exchange is very important because it presents a clear example of knee jerk atheist incredulity toward the claim of proper basicality in religious belief. In addition, it demonstrates how this initial skepticism is very difficult to defend when pressed. 

The conversation was edited for length and relevance. Those seeking the full meal deal are invited to go back to the original threaded discussion: 

***

RD Rauser: I don't think, as you apparently do, that a religious privileging has to be justified. I take each religion as properly basic absent defeaters. Do you believe that the diversity of religions past and present constitutes a defeater that needs arguments so I can be justified? If so then why?

AnAtheist.Net replied by asking for clarification on the meaning of proper basicality.

RDR: When I say that religious beliefs are prima facie properly basic, I meant that they do not need any evidence to be justified: i.e. a person does not need arguments or evidence to hold those beliefs.

All that would change if a sufficient defeater of the truth of the belief should arise.

AAN: If religious beliefs were properly basic then they would be obvious to most people most of the time and there would be little, if any, disagreement as to their content. The vast disagreement among religions throughout history shows that this is certainly not the case.

RDR: You exclude religious beliefs from proper basicality based on the claim that a properly basic belief is one which is "obvious to most people most of the time." Do you have evidence that that belief is obvious to most people most of the time? If not, what is your argument for it?

AAN: Evidence for what belief? I wasn't expressing a belief rather I was expressing what seems to me to be the proper definition of what 'basic' means. If something isn't sufficiently obvious to most people most of the time then in what sense could it possibly be called basic?

RDR: I read you as excluding religious belief based on the belief that only beliefs which are "obvious to most people most of the time" can be properly basic (and that religion doesn't qualify). If you don't believe this, then you have no defeater to the proper basicality of religious belief. If you do believe it, then you have to explain what evidence you have or establish that most people most of the time find your view obvious.

AAN: No, no, no, NO. That is simply what I mean by the concept of basicality. If you prefer a different definition or find mine to be wanting, then please explain.

RDR: I understand that that is what you mean by basicality. I also assume that you believe your own proposed criterion. I also understand that if your belief in that criterion is to be justified it must itself either be properly basic (as evidenced by the fact that most people, most of the time believe it) or it must be non-basic but supported by evidences which ultimately trace back to beliefs that most people believe most of the time.

What's the point? I'm pointing out that your objection to the proper basicality of religious belief is unsustainable because your very definition of what constitutes proper basicality is indefensible,

AAN: Forget about my understanding of basicality for a moment (since you don't seem to like that) and answer me this: What about your religious beliefs (or religious beliefs in general) makes them "properly basic" such that, in your own words, they "do not need any evidence to be justified?"

***

Debriefing

The short of it is this. AAN argues that religious belief canot be properly basic because these beliefs are not obvious to most people most of the time. This response implies a criterion of proper basicality: i.e. that a properly basic belief is one that is obvious to most people most of the time.

I then asked AAN whether this criterion is itself obvious to most people most of the time. I see no evidence that it is, and thus it cannot be properly basic. This does not mean it cannot be true, but it does mean that AAN needs some other evidence to justify belief in his criterion of proper basicality. He could provide none, and so his initial objection to the proper basicality of religious belief fails.