Here I want to share a few thoughts on the relationship between belief and evidence. With exceptions, something is evidence for a thesis, it seems, if it indicates or suggests that the thesis is true. Plausibly, beliefs that x are partially caused by having (encountered) evidence that x. If all beliefs are partially caused by evidence in such a way, then this sheds a sympathetic light on all beliefs and all that believe something. We may still think certain people believe things that are not true, but we cannot then maintain that there is or has been no evidence for what they believe. Further, seemingly, beliefs can also lead to having (encountered) evidence. A belief that x is (possibly) the case may lead one to do certain things which in turn lead one to acquiring or encountering evidence that x. For instance, the belief that one’s bike may have been stolen may lead one check the shed and to find it empty, thus providing one with (further) evidence that it has indeed been stolen.

Interestingly, the fact that (some)one believes something may, at least under certain circumstances, constitute evidence that what is believed is true. For instance, if most of the beliefs a person has are true, then for any belief, b, that person has, b is probably true. Of course, the longer one selects b’s from the pool of b’s the more likely it is that one has selected at least one b that is false. Also, if one selects most of the b’s and is somehow able to determine that most of them are indeed true, then the remaining b’s are probably false. However, at least under certain circumstances, if such a person believes that x, then that fact would constitute evidence that x. So, interestingly, a person that believes in God and knows that most of her beliefs are true (e.g. because she knows they have been produced by reliable factulties), has, at least under certain circumstances, evidence that God exists, even if she does not have an argument that would convince others that God exists. Note that, under certain circumstances, she wouldn’t even need to know that most of her beliefs are true. If she knew instead that most of her beliefs were based on evidence, then, given certain things, her belief that God exists is probably based on evidence. The fact that she believes that God exists could then also constitute evidence that God exists. But we needn’t talk merely about individuals, consider the following arguments:

Argument 1 (Inductive)

1. Most things presently believed are true.
2. Many people presently believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

An obvious move is to deny (1), but note that this can lead to problems: If it is false that most things presently believed are true, then under certain circumstances (e.g. the ratio of true and false beliefs is the same in all that have beliefs), most of what you presently believe is false. Of course, you could argue that although (1) is false you are a special sort of person that does not have (mostly) false beliefs. But one could also offer a partity objection to the argument since there are also many people that do not believe that God exists.

Argument 2 (Inductive)

1. Generally, if many people presently believe that x, there is evidence that x.
2. Many people presently believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, there is evidence that God exists.

Argument 3 (Deductive)

1. Generally, if someone believes that x, she has encountered evidence that x.
2. Many people presently believe that God exists.
3. There will be people, not yet alive, who will believe that God exists.
4. If (1)-(3), then there probably is evidence that God exists.
5. Therefore, there probably is evidence that God exists.

One way to object against these arguments is to argue that it is impossible to have evidence for God’s existence. If so, then, (4) in argument 3 is false and in argument 2, (1) and (2) provide little by way of support for the conclusion. But the position that it is impossible to have evidence for God’s existence is not very easy to defend. Merely arguing that God does not exist won’t cut it, because one (arguably) can have evidence for things that are not the case. Arguing that nothing could constitute a proof that God exists won’t cut it either, because something can be evidence for x without proving that x.