is morally wrong to adopt irrational beliefs. This view is sometimes labelled “evidentialism”.[9]

Consider the common mantra of those who don’t believe in God. They pose this challenge: “If God exists, then why doesn’t he make himself more obvious? If there was any evidence for God, then I’d believe in him.” Really? Is it that simple? This common challenge is problematic for two reasons. First, it wrongly assumes that no evidence for God exists

There is, however, another kind of duty involved: something that philosophers call epistemic duty. This is the duty to subject one’s beliefs to the appropriate amount of critical scrutiny: to examine whether they are warranted by the available evidence and to at least attempt to ascertain whether or not there exists any countervailing evidence.

myself stumbled into the moral argument while speaking on university campuses on the absurdity of life without God. I argued that if there is no God, then there is no foundation for objective moral values. Everything becomes relative. To my surprise the response of the students was to insist that objective moral values do exist. Certain things