Evidence Doesn't Destroy Free-Will

I was thinking a bit more about yesterday's post regarding sufficient evidence. Specifically, Coren's point about god providing just enough evidence to allow belief, but not so much that we would lack the freedom to disbelieve:

If God were good, He would make Himself obvious. Not really. God makes
himself just sufficiently evident to allow us freedom.

Like so much theist argument, this sounds nice and probably suffices to sway most believers (even the wavering believers) who don't examine this assertion too closely. The underlying premise is that an overwhelming body of evidence would make it impossible for humans to exercise the freedom to disbelieve. However, this is clearly false, as demonstrated by any number of other cases where availability of evidence has had no bearing on individual freedom to believe or disbelieve. For example:

• There is overwhelming evidence to support the theory of evolution through natural selection, but the vast majority of Americans choose not to believe it, opting instead to hold creationist beliefs supported by only 0.14% of the scientific community.
• There is no evidence of a US government conspiracy to orchestrate the attacks of 9/11, yet many people choose to believe that this is precisely what transpired.
• There is clear and convincing evidence that NASA landed on the moon in 1969, yet some people demonstrate free-will by rejecting this evidence.
• Some people even choose to reject the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

This list could go on and on, indicating that the availability or absence of evidence has no bearing upon an individual's freedom to accept or reject a particular belief. Indeed, in the case of evolution, the availability of copious evidence has had no impact upon the majority's ability to hold a reject a well-supported belief. In the general case, however, the better the evidence, the more likely people are to accept a belief.

So, god could choose to present clear, unambiguous proof of his existence without fear of destroying free-will. Indeed, presenting such evidence would probably increase the likelihood of god-belief, thereby reducing the number of people destined for eternal damnation. Sounds like a reasonably course of action for a loving god! Instead, we have no falsifyable method for detecting the existence of god, and a world in which the method of reason--rather than the method of pure faith--consistently produces better decision-making results.

In keeping with religion's complete perfection (as a completely perfect scam), early author covered themselves against the contingency that many would try to use reason to find god:

"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test..."

The author should have completed this passage with its logical conclusion: "For he shall fail."