Prima Facie Justification

An interesting point has come up in the comments of the thread about the The Umbrella Fallacy. It is the difference between prima facie and an in-depth analysis (is there a Latin phrase for second, third and later looks?).

Prima Facie Justification

I do not think that rationality is the privileged domain of philosophers and scientists. I think that most people are prima facie justified (rational) in most of their beliefs. Atheists are prima facie justified in their moral beliefs and Christians are prima facie justified in their faith. I take what epistemologists call an externalist view of justification. That means that a foundational principle (which often goes unexamined) is that we are well-adapted to our environment. That could be because God designed us to know Him and that he wrote His law on our hearts. Or it could be because evolution adapted us to our environment and in doing so, gave us instinctive beliefs that are aimed at the truth.

I am a Christian who rejects secular arguments for moral realism, but I am a friendly Christian. I think that atheists and Christians both have a prima facie justification for their beliefs. Atheists are not typically friendly. Most atheists think that faith in God is irrational without evidence. But the umbrella fallacy strikes. They do not think that they are unjustified in their moral beliefs, even though they do not have evidence for them. One possible objection is that atheists may point to tit-for-tat or evolution "for the good of the group." Atheists may claim that they have evidence. But Christians can mouth a few sentences about "who created the universe?" or "what about the empty tome?" The vast majority of both atheists and Christians are not philosophically sophisticated and have not moved beyond the prima facie level. Arguments need to rest on a deep study and understanding. So I repeat: atheists have fallen prey to the umbrella fallacy. They have a double-standard of evidence. A strict standard for Christians and a lose standard for themselves.


In-depth Analysis

Now let's move to the in-depth level. I find secular arguments for moral realism to be weak and strained. By contrast, arguments for the existence of God are quite strong. Thus we see the umbrella fallacy in atheistic philosophy: philosophically sophisticated atheists still have a double-standard of proof. They have a very strict standard for Christians and a lax standard for atheists. Of course, this assertion is massively question-begging. Most atheists would say that it is the other way around. So atheists do not think they are committing the umbrella fallacy, but I think they are.