Arguments for belief generally fail to sway the unconvinced. But is this because the evidence is flimsy and the arguments weak—or because they attempt to give the right answer to the wrong question? What, after all, would satisfy Russell's all for evidence? investigates the rich implications of what the authors call "Calvinistic" or "Reformed epistemology." This is the view of knowledge-enunciated by Calvin, further developed by Barth-that sees belief in God as its own foundation; in the authors’ terms, is it properly "basic" in itself.