Why Should Religious Philosophers Be Unbiased

First let me say that I’m religious. At least I consider myself such, don’t know what’s God opinion on that matter. Hope not too bad.

However I don’t buy ‘proofs’ of God’s existence. And not this or that proof, but proofs in general.

Surely if God is taken as a ground (explanation) of everything else, to figure out God’s existence is to understand everything – to figure out the ground, and prove that the ground is God. Has anyone who approaches the issue of God existence really went so far to discuss The Ground? Have those from the theists side? Have those from the atheists side? Maybe, but I really doubt it.

Atheists (arguing against existence of God) usually point to elementary particles and causal relations and complex processes as The Ground. Theists negate that those things can be The Ground. But even if theists are right, how is this a proof of God? If we don’t understand why this or that, we can’t just say – it is because of God. Maybe by negating that what is on the table can be The Ground, one is pointing to the possibility that The God might be The Ground. But surely it is not ‘a proof’.

Seems that the wish to understand the world is put aside in these discussions, and instead of it uncritical thought is promoted with the goal of proving that The Ground is this or that. Seems immature to me.  Why would theist philosophers (if they sincerely want to understand as much as they can) do that ? Surely theists according to their beliefs have nothing to loose by removing God from their philosophical considerations and approaching the understanding sincerely. After all, theists believe that God is The Ground, so they should believe that good understanding will not prove them wrong. So they shouldn’t take care about making space for God in their philosophical theories and systems. If God is The Ground, all that they need to take care of is to NOT BE biased, their thought to be critical, and informed by science. If they really believe there is God, they shouldn’t be afraid of some conclusions that philosophical thought or science might imply.