There were many fierce critics of Clifford's brand of Evidentialism. Some outright deny that evidence is required for belief in all cases. What could it look like to believe without evidence and it be legitimate? Recall that Clifford's dictum was that it would be "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone". A single counter example could refute Clifford's claim, if it is possible. (Though, this does not show evidentialism in general is false)
www.jonathanvajda.com
Email: philosophyvajda@gmail.com for questions, topic recommendations, interviews, direct instruction arrangements, etc.
Twitter: @jonathanvajda
If you want to say thanks with a tip or gift (say, buy me coffee?), I can accept PayPal, BTC, ETH and ADA. See my support landing page: jonathanvajda.com/support/