Many secular critics hold that religious belief is worthy of criticism because there is no evidence for any religious doctrine. But secular critics themselves hold beliefs for which there is arguably no evidence. In order to avoid the charge of inconsistency, secular critics must establish that their own belief is more defensible than religious belief. Recent epistemology focuses on justification as the primary notion available in defense of belief, and this aggravates the problem for secular critics. Once some alternative evaluative notions come to light, with the help of Hume and J.L. Austin, a satisfying solution emerges.