More voices here.
Atheism, like Christianity, requires an act of faith. There is no evidence whatsoever for the non-existence of God, and there is plenty of evidence for His existence. However, this evidence is entirely anecdotal, highly subjective, often conflicting and not subject to scientific rigour.
I could quibble, of course, with some of this. But he sees a key point that most miss; and, that is, that the atheist lives by faith just like the rest of us. Even skepticism is faith based. As I’ve noted before, one is only skeptical about one thing, because he BELIEVES this other thing and thus his skepticism. Show me a skeptic and I will turn the coin over and show you a great and robust BELIEVER in something, even if it is only a self-referential belief in one’s ability to know everything. One could become their own god I suppose. Whatever. It is still belief and it is still faith. I’m reminded of a saying we have in the legal world: “An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.” I would suggest a similar sentiment toward those who think their powers of objectivity so strong they can always trust their skepticism…which always seems to agree with whatever they were so sure about to begin with. Hmmmm… In other words, let’s turn this around: The “evidence” for the non-existence of God is entirely anecdotal, highly subjective, often conflicting and not subject to scientific rigour.
The writer also, to his credit, sees that the “evidence” for God’s existence was never meant for “scientific” rigor because God is not a “force” or object like any other known “thing” that one could even subject to scientific rigor (How funny! “Ummm, God, could you step on this scale so we can see how much you weigh?”). He knows to try and make God subject to moving a Richter scale or showing up on radar is to make a philosophical category error. He notes that if we consider the global evidence, existence itself, the physical universe, and ourselves, that such could be interpretedas indicating God’s existence to be more likely than not.
It could also be interpreted differently and thus the possibility of atheism. But both interpretations are ultimately faith-based (in the sense of how I have already posted regarding what faith means).