Originally appeared in Philosophy Now, April/May 2010 (Publisher’s page | PhilArchive (PDF))
This was published when public debate over the views of the “New Atheists” (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and others), was at its peak. I’m reposting it now because, in addition to being written for a general audience, it remains relevant to current debates about the (ir)rationality of religious belief. It focuses on a central strategy of the New Atheists — that of demanding that believers provide strong evidence for God’s existence while at the same time insisting that no evidence whatsoever is required for God’s non-existence. In the article I discuss five of their most commonly offered reasons for why atheism requires no evidence, and argue that none of them succeed. At the end I gesture toward what I believe is the right way to view matters.