Clifford's formulation targets the core evidentialism concern: belief requires adequate justification, not merely permission. Weaker versions may not qualify as genuinely evidentialist.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Clifford(as a philosopher being referenced): William Kingdon Clifford was a 19th-century philosopher who argued that it's morally wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence—basically, you shouldn't believe claims just because you want to.
Genuinely evidentialist(as describing whether a position actually counts as real evidentialism): Truly following the rules of evidentialism (the evidence-based belief theory); weaker versions might claim to be evidentialist but don't actually require strong enough evidence.
adequate(Modal logic): A system is adequate for a class of frames when it is both sound and complete with respect to validity over that class
evidentialism(Used as the standard that theistic philosophers may grant and then attempt to satisfy): The epistemic position that belief in God (or any proposition) requires adequate evidence or argument to be justified

Based on where you are in your exploration