One of the things I have noticed about Christine Blasey Ford allegations against Judge Kavanaugh is the response from the atheist activist community. As far as i can tell, there is a unanimous consensus of belief. That is, the atheist activist community (ranging from Coyne to Myers to Mehta to Harris, along with various organizations) embraces her allegations as truth. This is worth noting in that the same atheist activist community postures as the champions of reason and evidence. Many of their leaders have science degrees and are portrayed as experts when it comes to the handling of evidence. We are then told that it is this mastery of reason and evidence, along with a powerful commitment to reason and evidence, that led them to their atheism. Which leaves me wondering…..is their consensus of belief (regarding Ford’s allegations) derived from the evidence itself? Or is the belief more akin to faith? The only way to answer this question is with a detailed consideration of the evidence.
What’s more, the social justice advocates have been working overtime to frame the Kavanaugh confirmation in dark and sinister terms.
For example, Sophia Nelson wrote an article insisting “Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is the ultimate affirmation of the patriarchy” and arguing “the vote on Saturday was about preserving the status quo. It was about keeping women in our place.”
The Huffpost declares ” With Kavanaugh Confirmation, GOP Commits Again To Patriarchy, Misogyny.”
And, of course, we have already seen that Chuck Wendig has threatened, “Winter is coming, you callous fucknecks, you prolapsed assholes, you grotesque monsters, you racists and rapists and wretched abusers, you vengeful petty horrors.”
Yet those of us who both understand and value critical thinking will quickly recognize there is no need to impart such dark and sinister motives to those who did not oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation on the basis of these allegations. Instead, large numbers of those people simply valued the cherished social principle of the presumption of innocence unless there is compelling evidence to think otherwise. This presumption derives from the key philosophical principle known as the burden of proof, which, according to Wikipedia states that “When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.” Thus, it would not be a defense of patriarchy and sexism at work.
So a consideration of the evidence is merited. When it comes to Ford’s allegations, is there sufficient evidence to a) justify the consensus belief of atheist activists and b) justify imparting such sinister motivations to those who did not oppose the confirmation?