Abstract
A great deal of work in philosophy of religion historically has been dedicated to developing arguments for God's existence. Religious evidentialism is the most natural and intuitive way of approaching the justification of religious belief. Among Christians, at least, a common reason people resist religious evidentialism is that there are examples of religious belief – examples that are taken to be representative of a broad swath of religious believers – which appear to be justified and yet do not seem to be supported by any evidence. Many epistemologists have made note of problems like this one and have chosen to look elsewhere for the key to epistemic justification. Many philosophers in the western tradition would answer in the affirmative. Believing on the basis of good evidence is likely to yield true beliefs and avoid false ones.