Morally Necessary to Assume the Existence of God

I am fascinated by Marcello Pera, a famous Italian philosopher and political leader (see his book, Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians: The Religious Roots of Free Societies). Here's why. Look at this quote:

"The rights of human beings are to liberals as the laws of nature are to scientists: once discovered (not invented) by someone at a certain time and place, they are valid for all and forever. But just as the laws of nature refer to an order inscribed in the world, the rights of human beings refer to a God who has stamped His image upon man. And this is clearly the Christian vision of God, creator of the natural and moral world." (p. 49)

And this:

"In order not to destroy society by deteriorating into license and violence, individual freedom requires limits: a sense of sinfulness, of what is forbidden, unthinkable, nonnegotiable. This limit cannot be established only by positive law, at whatever level (constitutional, international, etc.), because such a law could always be overridden. A moral, religious limit is needed, or one that is experienced as religious. The Christian limit is not putting oneself in God’s place but respecting His will, or not arousing the “wrath of God,” about which Jefferson spoke." (pp. 48-49)

What is intriguing about this is that Marcello Pera is an atheist. What explains this?

For Pera, a European political philosopher, Europe is well on the way, figuratively, to hell. The only thing that will save it is if Europe returns to its Christian roots. Does Pera, an atheist, believe in God and Jesus? No. But he does believe, he says, in the message of Jesus. We must live "as if God exists."

He writes:

"The admirer of the Christian message is someone who believes that Christianity has changed the world, that it has brought about an unprecedented moral revolution of love, equality, and dignity, whose effects are still at work today. He believes that had this revolution never occurred, the world would be a far worse place; the life of man would be more savage, basic human rights without sufficient guarantee, and our prospects less hopeful. He also believes that the culture of Christianity is of great value to himself and to others; that it is a good unto itself." (p. 58)

One must admit that this atheist has a different view than that of the raging "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens).

"But all that is still not enough. Those who stop at believing that must not hold back from believing in. We must go beyond the rationalism that confines us to our calculations, beyond the positivism that binds us to the testimony of our senses, beyond the scientism that accepts only experimental proof. We must not allow our yearning for the divine and the sacred, our experience of mystery and the infinite to be purged from our inner life. We cannot be whole human beings without these dimensions. And we cannot be liberals of only one dimension." (p. 59)

Following Kant et. al., Pera knows that "It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God."

Christian Commentary III: Bias and Objectivity

"I do know quite a bit about religion, but not from the biased insider's point of view... I am able to compare and contrast belief systems without having to support one desperately to appease my own cognitive dissonance."
 
This sounds as if you see yourself standing outside religion and analyzing it objectively. You mention your own bias, but do you really consider it? What about your bias as a non-believer of God or gods? I would say you are not standing outside. In the same way I am biased towards believing in the Christian God, you are biased towards believing in no god. The belief system you run the risk of supporting desperately due to your own cognitive dissonance is that of the nonexistence of God. I made my decision on religion based on this presumption, "There are many religions in the world, all of them claiming to be true. They cannot all be true, but might there be truth in there somewhere? If there is truth to be found here, I am going to plunge in as far as it takes to safely conclude the truth or lack thereof." I would hazard to say your presumption goes like this: "There are many religions in the world, and they all seem like fairy-tales or wishful thinking or supernatural explanation for what science used to not know. Since there isn't truth here, I can compare and contrast them academically, like I would compare and contrast theories or Brothers Grimm. If there is truth to be found here, it will rise to the top of my analysis, but I do not expect it to be so."
 
 
"Not to sound harsh, but to deny that the reality of a religion is purely subjective shows a lack of perspective."
 
This statement proves my point. Saying that the reality of religion is purely subjective is the same as saying there is no reality to religion. If religion - God's existence - is dependent on personal opinion/culture/feelings, and thus different for everyone, then there is no true God out there that is independent of everyone's stance. But if any of the religions are true, then there is a God or gods who exist regardless of any one person's view. Thus, as you assume all religious views are subjective, by default you assume they are all untrue.
 
I posit that if there is a God out there, He exists objectively, and it is of importance for every human to take the time to determine whether or not this is true. "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it. That is not the point at which Faith comes in" (C. S. Lewis). But you cannot look at it objectively, with your best reasoning, until you take the stance that if it is true, it (and God) exists objectively.