Yahweh as most perfect being and the burden of belief

Randal took a slurp of his coffee, sat back in his chair, and continued: "So I am trying to address the question, "Why believe Yahweh is the most perfect being?" As we have seen, there are two possible defeaters to this claim. Before I outline those defeaters and seek to address them, I want to say a few words about evidential burdens."

The young college student waved his hand to get Randal's attention. "Whoa, what's an evidential burden?"

Randal replied: "It is the obligation one has either to provide evidence for a belief requiring evidence or to defeat a defeater for an otherwise justified belief. Since defeaters exist to the claim that Yahweh is identical with the most perfect being, I want to ask who faces the evidential burden of those defeaters. Does it extend to all Christians or only some? For instance, does it extend only to experts or also to the little old lady who has been going to the same country church for eighty years?

"This brings me to my thesis. My view is that, generally speaking, this is a communally shared evidential burden which is largely shouldered by the experts in the Christian community. This means that the little old lady is free to believe that Yahweh is the most perfect being, even absent a defeater for the defeater."

The college student shook his head and folded his arms in a clear show of skepticism.

Randal continued: "In order to see my argument, consider a different epistemic community, namely one that is drawn on economic rather than religious lines. Here our average lay believer is Matts the plumber. He lives in Stockholm and he thinks that socialism is the best economic system. Despite the fact that Matts has heard of other economic systems, he prefers socialism given his experience of living in Sweden for fifty years and enjoying the high standard of living. In other words, Matts' awareness of competing economic systems is roughly equivalent to the lay Christian's awareness of competing religious systems. Is Matts justified in his belief, even despite his rudimentary knowledge of opposing views?"

The college student looked uncertain. "Maybe."

Randal replied: "Well it seems to me that if a lay participant in an economic doxastic community can be justified accepting that system as superior despite a rudimentary knowledge of opposing views, then a lay participant in a religious community can just as well."

The mathematician suddenly cut in. "But what if Matts has some awareness not only of opposing views, but also of the actual defeaters of his view?"

Randal nodded. "Okay, let's say that he read an article by a Washington Consensus economist which lampoons socialism with apparently strong arguments. Is Matts, upon the reading of this article, now obliged to surrender his commitment to the superiority of socialism?"

"Probably not right away," the college student replied. "But certainly he should look at rebuttals"

"Maybe," Randal said. "but what if Matts doesn't understand enough economics to grasp an adequate reply? And yet he knows of an important socialist economist named Kai who is able to respond to all these arguments. Would Matts' simple awareness that Kai is able to respond be sufficient for him to maintain his justified belief in the superiority of socialism?"

Save the melody of Cat Stevens "Wild World" playing in the background on the radio, there was silence in the cafe. Since nobody seemed ready to venture an opinion, Randal continued:

"In my view, the debate over the superiority of socialism vs. free market capitalism is a debate that largely rests with Kai and the other intellectuals. The vast majority of lay people who participate in their respective economic systems and believe them to be superior are surely justified in doing so, even despite some awareness of putative defeaters to their chosen system.

"And I believe it is the same thing for the Christian community. This means that just as Matts can believe socialism is the most perfect economic system, the Christian can believe that Yahweh is the most perfect being. The point of this whole excursus is to emphasize that this debate over defeaters only relates tangentially to the epistemic justification of the lay Christian."

The mathematician cut in: "But it does apply more immediately to those intellectually inclined to shoulder the burdens of the defeater, right?" 

Randal nodded.

"Well that sounds like you," the mathematician smiled. "So defeat the defeaters."