So let’s parse this out a little further:
- IF Abe has faith, and
- IF Boghossian’s substitutions are accurate,
- THEN we know Abe has no (veridical) evidence for his faith.
We can conclude this strictly on the basis of Boghossian’s Substitution Theorem. (I made that name up. It seems appropriate enough. Abbreviating it might or might not be. See the same earlier post for an explanation of the theorem.)
Note that we can conclude this without ever having met Abe, not knowing him, not asking him if he has evidence, not inquiring into any relevant evidence ourselves.
Boghossian’s Substitution Theorem leads directly and firmly to evidence-free conclusions on the part of those who apply the theorem.
But what if Abe actually does have evidence? More cautiously, what if he might have evidence for his faith?