to the likes of philosophers such as Clifford, with his famed words in defiance of faith, "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."[1] Clifford's remark is a sufficient definition to summarize an evidentialist's standpoint. In so many words, he is stating that one must never accept anything until full investigation has been sought after or be of the irrational. One can find the same distasteful tone in Huxley as he comments on faithful belief:
             "My only consolation lies in the reflection that, however bad our posterity may become, so far as they hold by the plain rule of not pretending to believe what they have no reason to believe...they will not have reached the lowest depth of immortality."[2]
             It can clearly be seen how beliefs such as these cut through the heart of religious dogma, and shackle the right of one to consult his or her emotional desires. The both of these philosophers clearly appear to, not only contest acting in absence of evidence, but also passionately feel that in doing so, one is committing the most appalling of all intellectual errors. In the evidential notion, of the only justifiable beliefs being those of ample evidence, there are many problems. I shall take this opportunity to unmask a few of them.
             If one were to reflect on her daily life she could not deny that decisions are made in the absence of reasonable evidence on a regular basis. It seems absurd to think that one should avoid eating a delicious piece of cake on the grounds that she did not have sufficient evidence to be certain the cake was not poisoned. The same limitations would restrain a person from ever believing a car was a safe means of transportation until sufficient evidence on the car's manufacturing and accident history was present. In both these situations, if the worst-case scenario were to become reality, life would be threatened. Yet, it would ...