On taking people seriously

In "Does God speak today? A Case Study" I recounted (or rather, reproduced) Kevin's story in which he reported receiving information from God about future events which later occurred as predicted. Conversational Atheist (henceforth "CA") then commented: "Are you seriously expecting anyone to take you seriously when you seriously propose that God talks to people based on what you've written?" Note the unqualified nature of CA's comment with the somber, thrice-repeated "seriously". CA seems to imply that nobody should really take what Kevin (or I) say seriously.

CA's comment is revealing because it assumes a blunt, simplistic, and altogether erroneous approach to testimony. (Sorry to be equally blunt CA, but you can handle it.) It assumes that arguments either should be "taken seriously" (which I take him to mean, have evidential force) for everybody or nobody. But clearly this is false.

Let's consider three people. To begin with, there is Carly Christian. Carly believes there is a God who providentially superintends the events of creation, who knows of our struggles and responds to them. Should Carly take Kevin's testimony seriously? (That is, should she grant it some evidential force?) Of course she should, and she will. That doesn't mean that she will necessarily agree with Kevin's own interpretation of his experiences, but she may.

Next, there is Andre Agnostic. Andre is one of those non-dogmatic agnostics who doesn't have an axe to grind against religion and really is open to evidence for God. That is, he believes that there may be a God and that there could be evidence in support of God. Should he take Kevin's testimony seriously? Sure, why not? Just like he grants some probative force to the testimony of other people on a regular basis, so he can grant some force to Kevin's. While he may not believe Kevin, the testimony might make him a bit more open to theism than he was before.

Finally, there is Alex Atheist. He believes that there is no God because the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of the intensity and distribution of evil. Alex will not grant evidential force to Kevin's testimony.

Carly, Andre and Alex all have a different set of beliefs at the outset, and thus when they consider Kevin's testimony, each places a different evidential demand upon that testimony. Is it any wonder then that they will disagree about whether Kevin's testimony has evidential force?

Here's an analogy. Let's say that my post was instead titled "Is the Toyota Yaris practical for a one car family?" This, of course, depends on which family we're talking about. It will probably be practical for a husband, wife and baby living in New York, but not for a ranching family living in Wyoming. You can hardly blame the Yaris for not being able to meet the needs of every family. Practicality is relative.

Evidential force (or seriousness) is relative as well. The fact is that people ask different things of Kevin's testimony. Carly asks it to provide yet more evidence that God is involved in day to day events. That is a relatively low evidential demand. But Alex is asking it to overturn all the evidence he already has against God. That is a contrasting high demand. Is it any wonder that Carly could very well consider Kevin's testimony convincing while Alex will dismiss it?

(Of course this works in reverse too. If I'd posted a case of what I called pointless, gratuitous evil, Alex would have nodded with a yea and amen since he already accepts the existence of pointless, gratuitous evil, but Carly as a Christian does not accept this and so probably would not accept my claim.)  

With that in mind, let's return to CA's comment: "Are you seriously expecting anyone to take you seriously when you seriously propose that God talks to people based on what you've written?" Let's put it this way: will everyone take it seriously? Obviously not. But will (and should) some? Of course. Seriously.