Is skepticism even rational at this point?

Michie · 2025-12-10T07:24:57-0600

The Christian God has always been defined as timeless, immaterial, and who caused matter into existence. Skeptics continue to claim, however, that there isn’t enough evidence to warrant reasonable belief in the existence of God. With modern science, I believe that denying the inferences to God can only be sustained by playing skeptical games. Let me explain why.

I am reading the currently released English translation of an international bestseller, originally written in French (2021) by Michel-Yves Bollore and Olivier Bonnassies. The research is comprehensive. Their purpose is not to defend a particular religious belief. The authors unpack how in the history of science inferential indicators of God were often discouraged, but not for scientific reasons. In God, the Science, the Evidence: the Dawn of a Revolution, they explained:

“Our ability to accept a claim, scientific or otherwise, depends on more than rational evidence. . . The phenomenon is particularly acute when one broaches the subject of the existence of God, because what is at stake is not just some point of scientific data but the very meaning of our life... For many people, the desire to be free and autonomous ... takes precedence over everything else. Their inmost-self recoils from this idea of God: to defend itself, it mobilizes all its intellectual resources to oppose the search for truth and to protect its own perceived independence and freedom.” [1]

“This phenomenon” of defending skepticism when challenged by the subject of God was also critiqued by the authors saying, “instead of stimulating thoughtful discussion, the subject often provokes reactions ranging from annoyed indifference to ridicule, contempt, and even violence.”[2] I am being convinced that a skeptic is suppressing inferential knowledge of God for personal reasons. Furthermore, it’s not difficult to discern how the rhetorical games of skepticism are necessary to keep denials going.

Continued below.