One of my atheist friends accuses me of looking at the arguments for and against God from a biased standpoint, that is, through rose-colored glasses.
He thinks I presuppose God before the arguments are in. Such presupposing is called “begging the question,” a known logical fallacy.
He further insists that if I were to examine the evidence and arguments from a neutral, unbiased viewpoint, I’d see that there are no good reasons to believe in God.
Note that unbiased is a demarcation word, a semantic blade that severs the wide-eyed believer from rational (unbiased) modern man.
Cool reason thus keeps its distance from blind faith.
But two can play at this game.
I ask my friend for some criteria that, if met, would guarantee that his judgements are neutral and objective.
In response, my friend provides a series of “criteria for belief.” One is this, which I shall call “X”:
We should always keep in the front of our minds a demand for compelling evidence in support of any claim or assertion.
But of course X itself is a claim for which we should demand “compelling evidence.”
So I am not so impressed with my friend’s call for objectivity. It’s a much tougher ideal to attain than he thinks.
Neither should you be impressed with the cold confidence of your cousin or nephew or next-door neighbor who’s newly declared himself an atheist in order to take up the fight of “unbiased” reason against religious superstition.
