Expert: Austin Cline - 7/16/2010

Question
Dear expert,

Thank you for answering my previous question.

I often use the Argument from uncertainty of faith against God to justify my agnosticism, we find elements that are in favour and against theism.
thus to convince me that such and such religion is the only Truth, I request STRONG evidences for it, evidences permitting NO reasonable doubts.

However, the philosopher René Descartes showed that one can't be 100% certain of everything, indeed it's possible to doubt oneself, logic, maths, science, the reality of this World (which could be an illusion or a dream), ect...
Descartes then says: "and yet, their uncertainty doesn't stop us from relying on them and consider them as truth; so why isn't it rational to do the same with religion?"

Does his saying refute my argument from uncertainty?

 

                                           Sincerely

Answer
Our inability to have certain knowledge undermines demands for certainty, but it doesn't undermine demand for strong evidence. Evidence should be commensurate with the level of claims being made. If the evidence wouldn't be adequate to convict a person in court, why rely on it for theism? If the level of evidence wouldn't convince a person to believe in a different god, or believe in alien abductions, why would they expect anyone else to accept it for their god?