Stephen Law presented sound philosophical arguments demonstrating that Tyler McNabb's belief was not justified. But Tyler McNabb announced that he was nevertheless going to continue believing it anyway. Towards the end of the discussion host Justin Brierley suggested that perhaps the popularity of “properly basic” belief was that it allowed believers to continue believing while avoiding any requirement to present compelling evidence.
In as much as they have a choice (given the unlikelihood of doxastic voluntarism), I think believers can choose between belief on the basis of evidence, or belief on the basis of faith. One or the other, you don't need both. In my view, however, neither will give you a rational basis for belief in God.
http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-belief-in-God-properly-basic-Tyler-McNabb-vs-Stephen-Law
Direct link to mp3:
http://cfvod.kaltura.com/pd/p/618072/sp/61807200/serveFlavor/entryId/1_tum2zwcz/v/1/flavorId/1_pndt9izi/name/a.mp3
Posts
