Sometimes a scientist will say something, well … unscientific. While a person may make his or her living within the scientific community, it doesn’t follow that every word that comes from their mouth is founded on science, reason or logic. Like anyone else, their utterances may be driven by mere opinion and sometimes those opinions may be far short of scientific.
“If I should believe in God without evidence, then why shouldn’t I believe in leprechauns as well? There’s no evidence they exist either.” In conversations with atheists, it doesn’t take long for that line of reasoning to appear. God is compared to leprechauns, faeries, unicorns, or even the infamous flying spaghetti monster with the assertion that belief in God is no more reasonable than belief in those magical creatures. Is that a fair comparison, or is it too superficial to be taken seriously? Forgive me if I think it’s a bit too cynical to be believed by even the most radical atheist.
In my conversations with atheists, this is the most frequent question asked. To the nonbeliever, it may sound like a reasonable question. It may even sound reasonable to a believer who then falls into the trap of trying to provide evidences that satisfy. To respond that way is ineffective because the real problem is with the question itself. It is seriously flawed by unreasonable assumptions and misconceptions. The question itself is questionable.