Great post! I still find myself thinking that lacktheists are just confused though. My general diagnosis is that lacktheists implicitly hold to a form of infallibilism but *only* about the religious domain, or closely related examples. The lacktheist will typically think that they can know things like whether their car is in the driveway, but once you turn to religious examples they'll ask for 'proofs' and 'irrefutable demonstrations.' This is also basically why I think the chart that gets circulated that you include here is super confused, because it implies that anyone who is a fallibilst about knowledge is agnostic about almost every proposition which just doesn't align with how the term is used (in my view). Agnosticism normally describes a view that considers the evidence to be, on balance, roughly equally forceful, or the position that one hasn't considered enough evidence to substantially count in favor of either side of the dispute. I don't think either of those characterizations include the implicit infallibilism the lacktheist smuggles in.
Also, I think it's fine for philosophers to be a bit elitist (in the sense that they dismiss rather offhandedly quite confused positions)! There are a lot of 'folk' philosophical positions that are just obviously wrong, and I think philosophers are well within their rights to be dismissive about those views, particularly on their own time or in their own circles. I agree that the philosophers should have good reasons to think that those views are confused, and be able to articulate them, but I don't think that confers an obligation to take the views seriously. I think I have rebuttals I could articulate to someone who believes in unicorns, that doesn't mean I have to take the Unicornians seriously!
The thing thats most annoying about lacktheists is it often feels like a rhetorical move rather than an actual philosophical position. You know the refrain "The one making the positive claim must provide evidence, I merely lack a belief thus make no positive claim thus have no burden of proof, etc." But this move often feels *purely* rhetorical because the lacktheist will often still bring up things like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness when it suits them, so they'll obviously believe there are things that count against the existence of God, but when involved in a discussion they'll pull the escape hatch so even if they flunk out on the positive case the theist still 'loses' but it counts as a win for atheism because we've defined an almost indistinguishable-from-agnostic position as atheistic (to be honest over time I've almost entirely lost the thread on how the lacktheist's doxastic states are supposed to be different from the agnostic, but thats a digression).
I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you say about the sociological and pragmatic reasons for adopting lacktheism, but I don't think those are the axis critiques of lacktheism attack it from, and I don't think those considerations ameliorate the issues the critics are leveling.
In some ways I agree, in some ways I don't. I think your normie atheist is not going to have a coherent epistemology (most people won't!) and so your infalliblist diagnosis is somewhat accurate. A lot of methodologies converge to make an unproductive conversation (implicit, presupposed metaphysical naturalism, infalliblist).
Having said that, I think you're incorrect about raising the bar for religious examples. Like, I don't think it's unreasonable to demand better evidence for the resurrection, or for miracles. Obviously I can't speak for every lacktheist and we would probably need to ground things in good examples, but I've yet to see an example of a well known atheist having unreasonable evidentiary standards. Most evidence that is presented in these arguments is really bad! More interesting flaws (that I'm trying to deconstruct in myself) are what an atheist would consider good evidence and not a delusion. Or, for example, is it valid to say that the tradition tri-omni God isn't real because it's conceptualization is contradictory/incoherent or that it's attributes haven't been demonstrated (ever see a disembodied mind?)
All to say, I'm very sympathetic to the philosopher of religion/apologist/idea enthusiast saying this mode of thinking is a little closed off or unhelpful. But I'm not convinced that the lacktheist is demonstrating epistemic vices. I'm inclined to say they're using virtue, just lacking curiosity (describing myself tbh!)
I think there are multiple versions of agnosticism, and those definitions will change pending on context/use.
I’m okay with elitism for philosophers, but I also think philosophers don’t realize how their field doesn’t really make progress or go toward consensus. It’s not like science. And so the policing is sort of like “okay bro.”
I don’t disagree with lacktheists maybe rigging the game rhetorically. Again, it depends on the person, I have a very negative view of the median internet commenter. But all else equal, I would rather the norms of high standards of evidence remain.
I think the critics of lacktheism are really poisoned by Christians sort of rigging the game to both nutpick and not actually engage with both the arguments and the cultural context it comes up in. Like, when I see BB and Joe Schmid treat Trent Horn with more respect than Matt Dillahunty, there’s something wrong here (even if MD can be annoying). I think if you control/offset that rigging, lacktheism is more respectable and some of the weirdness and (allowable, understandable, human) bias becomes more evident.
So, I agree with you that it's fine (probably epistemically virtuous, actually!) to have higher standards of evidence for miracle claims, as an example. I think, in bayesian terms, this is basically just having a low prior in God's existence and I don't think theres anything wrong with that (I have a low prior in God's existence so it would be silly for me to think thats irrational). The main problem I have is with the burden shifting rhetorical move *or* when the evidentiary standards become something insurmountable. I'd have to go quote mining and frankly I don't have a strong interest in doing so, but I have vague recollections of Matt dillahunty saying crazy stuff about his standards of evidence for the resurrection, like he couldn't imagine it possible that he be convinced. Now, I think there can be a good reason to assign such a low prior to God's existence that these crazy high evidentiary standards become no longer crazy, as you mention I think this happens if you find the concept of classical theism to be incoherent for logical reasons. But the sorts of motivations that would justify these evidentiary standards are pretty sophisticated! I think they are the sort of thing you have to provide an argument for. Despite that, I think lacktheists shirk that burden and try to push it off onto the theist with the rhetorical move I mentioned before, and I think that sort of behavior *is* epistemically vicious.
Also, fwiw, I probably have more respect for Trent Horn than Dillahunty as well in terms of philosophy, but thats just because I think Trent actually presents positive arguments for his position and is decently well informed on the matter, and I have an antecedently very low opinion of Dillahunty, so it's not actually that high of a bar for Trent to clear. Along with that I hold a much lower opinion of Trent than basically everyone I read on substack though so its almost entirely a low opinion of Matt thing.
All of that is fair! I don't even think I disagree with any of this. But on the point of Dillahunty, the resurrection, and existence of God, I think it is worth mentioning that God can be real and the resurrection false, so his denial of the latter probably having little to do with former. As I said previously, it is a more interesting conversation that's not really talked about - what evidence would qualify (For me, it would be "I have to see it and investigate it."). That's admittedly a very high bar!
And that's one of the more difficult questions/elephants in the room. That's a very pragmatic standard to live my life, but to continue in a conversation for philosophy of religion, I have to suspend that mode of thinking. I think that says something bad about philosophy of religion and not about the best way to live one's life, unfortunately.
Lastly on Matt Dillahunty - I think people are wayyyyyy too hard on him (and Aron Ra, but more so with MD) because he's actually a lot more sophisticated on these matters than he gets credit. When you control for the fact that he's basically self-taught (he doesn't have a college degree!), and a lot of these other YT folks have graduate degrees (including Horn), it's more understandable.
Also, I MD's been successfully smeared by Cameron at Capturing Christianity with the whole "Claims aren't evidence" bit - which would have been cleared up with an actual question for clarification. Meanwhile, for years MD has actual philosophers like Alex Malpass on his shows, debate debriefs, etc. It implies to me that he's not *as* bad as his critics say. Sure, he has YT clips of him saying silly things over the last 20 years while hosting a call in show, but I don't really expect rigor on the same level in that format. And I say this as someone who probably thinks MD is a little more cringe "resist lib" and SJW for my liking!
Great post! I still find myself thinking that lacktheists are just confused though. My general diagnosis is that lacktheists implicitly hold to a form of infallibilism but *only* about the religious domain, or closely related examples. The lacktheist will typically think that they can know things like whether their car is in the driveway, but once you turn to religious examples they'll ask for 'proofs' and 'irrefutable demonstrations.' This is also basically why I think the chart that gets circulated that you include here is super confused, because it implies that anyone who is a fallibilst about knowledge is agnostic about almost every proposition which just doesn't align with how the term is used (in my view). Agnosticism normally describes a view that considers the evidence to be, on balance, roughly equally forceful, or the position that one hasn't considered enough evidence to substantially count in favor of either side of the dispute. I don't think either of those characterizations include the implicit infallibilism the lacktheist smuggles in.
Also, I think it's fine for philosophers to be a bit elitist (in the sense that they dismiss rather offhandedly quite confused positions)! There are a lot of 'folk' philosophical positions that are just obviously wrong, and I think philosophers are well within their rights to be dismissive about those views, particularly on their own time or in their own circles. I agree that the philosophers should have good reasons to think that those views are confused, and be able to articulate them, but I don't think that confers an obligation to take the views seriously. I think I have rebuttals I could articulate to someone who believes in unicorns, that doesn't mean I have to take the Unicornians seriously!
The thing thats most annoying about lacktheists is it often feels like a rhetorical move rather than an actual philosophical position. You know the refrain "The one making the positive claim must provide evidence, I merely lack a belief thus make no positive claim thus have no burden of proof, etc." But this move often feels *purely* rhetorical because the lacktheist will often still bring up things like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness when it suits them, so they'll obviously believe there are things that count against the existence of God, but when involved in a discussion they'll pull the escape hatch so even if they flunk out on the positive case the theist still 'loses' but it counts as a win for atheism because we've defined an almost indistinguishable-from-agnostic position as atheistic (to be honest over time I've almost entirely lost the thread on how the lacktheist's doxastic states are supposed to be different from the agnostic, but thats a digression).
I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you say about the sociological and pragmatic reasons for adopting lacktheism, but I don't think those are the axis critiques of lacktheism attack it from, and I don't think those considerations ameliorate the issues the critics are leveling.
In some ways I agree, in some ways I don't. I think your normie atheist is not going to have a coherent epistemology (most people won't!) and so your infalliblist diagnosis is somewhat accurate. A lot of methodologies converge to make an unproductive conversation (implicit, presupposed metaphysical naturalism, infalliblist).
Having said that, I think you're incorrect about raising the bar for religious examples. Like, I don't think it's unreasonable to demand better evidence for the resurrection, or for miracles. Obviously I can't speak for every lacktheist and we would probably need to ground things in good examples, but I've yet to see an example of a well known atheist having unreasonable evidentiary standards. Most evidence that is presented in these arguments is really bad! More interesting flaws (that I'm trying to deconstruct in myself) are what an atheist would consider good evidence and not a delusion. Or, for example, is it valid to say that the tradition tri-omni God isn't real because it's conceptualization is contradictory/incoherent or that it's attributes haven't been demonstrated (ever see a disembodied mind?)
All to say, I'm very sympathetic to the philosopher of religion/apologist/idea enthusiast saying this mode of thinking is a little closed off or unhelpful. But I'm not convinced that the lacktheist is demonstrating epistemic vices. I'm inclined to say they're using virtue, just lacking curiosity (describing myself tbh!)
I think there are multiple versions of agnosticism, and those definitions will change pending on context/use.
I’m okay with elitism for philosophers, but I also think philosophers don’t realize how their field doesn’t really make progress or go toward consensus. It’s not like science. And so the policing is sort of like “okay bro.”
I don’t disagree with lacktheists maybe rigging the game rhetorically. Again, it depends on the person, I have a very negative view of the median internet commenter. But all else equal, I would rather the norms of high standards of evidence remain.
I think the critics of lacktheism are really poisoned by Christians sort of rigging the game to both nutpick and not actually engage with both the arguments and the cultural context it comes up in. Like, when I see BB and Joe Schmid treat Trent Horn with more respect than Matt Dillahunty, there’s something wrong here (even if MD can be annoying). I think if you control/offset that rigging, lacktheism is more respectable and some of the weirdness and (allowable, understandable, human) bias becomes more evident.
I likewise agree and disagree lol.
So, I agree with you that it's fine (probably epistemically virtuous, actually!) to have higher standards of evidence for miracle claims, as an example. I think, in bayesian terms, this is basically just having a low prior in God's existence and I don't think theres anything wrong with that (I have a low prior in God's existence so it would be silly for me to think thats irrational). The main problem I have is with the burden shifting rhetorical move *or* when the evidentiary standards become something insurmountable. I'd have to go quote mining and frankly I don't have a strong interest in doing so, but I have vague recollections of Matt dillahunty saying crazy stuff about his standards of evidence for the resurrection, like he couldn't imagine it possible that he be convinced. Now, I think there can be a good reason to assign such a low prior to God's existence that these crazy high evidentiary standards become no longer crazy, as you mention I think this happens if you find the concept of classical theism to be incoherent for logical reasons. But the sorts of motivations that would justify these evidentiary standards are pretty sophisticated! I think they are the sort of thing you have to provide an argument for. Despite that, I think lacktheists shirk that burden and try to push it off onto the theist with the rhetorical move I mentioned before, and I think that sort of behavior *is* epistemically vicious.
Also, fwiw, I probably have more respect for Trent Horn than Dillahunty as well in terms of philosophy, but thats just because I think Trent actually presents positive arguments for his position and is decently well informed on the matter, and I have an antecedently very low opinion of Dillahunty, so it's not actually that high of a bar for Trent to clear. Along with that I hold a much lower opinion of Trent than basically everyone I read on substack though so its almost entirely a low opinion of Matt thing.
All of that is fair! I don't even think I disagree with any of this. But on the point of Dillahunty, the resurrection, and existence of God, I think it is worth mentioning that God can be real and the resurrection false, so his denial of the latter probably having little to do with former. As I said previously, it is a more interesting conversation that's not really talked about - what evidence would qualify (For me, it would be "I have to see it and investigate it."). That's admittedly a very high bar!
And that's one of the more difficult questions/elephants in the room. That's a very pragmatic standard to live my life, but to continue in a conversation for philosophy of religion, I have to suspend that mode of thinking. I think that says something bad about philosophy of religion and not about the best way to live one's life, unfortunately.
Lastly on Matt Dillahunty - I think people are wayyyyyy too hard on him (and Aron Ra, but more so with MD) because he's actually a lot more sophisticated on these matters than he gets credit. When you control for the fact that he's basically self-taught (he doesn't have a college degree!), and a lot of these other YT folks have graduate degrees (including Horn), it's more understandable.
Also, I MD's been successfully smeared by Cameron at Capturing Christianity with the whole "Claims aren't evidence" bit - which would have been cleared up with an actual question for clarification. Meanwhile, for years MD has actual philosophers like Alex Malpass on his shows, debate debriefs, etc. It implies to me that he's not *as* bad as his critics say. Sure, he has YT clips of him saying silly things over the last 20 years while hosting a call in show, but I don't really expect rigor on the same level in that format. And I say this as someone who probably thinks MD is a little more cringe "resist lib" and SJW for my liking!