I agree with moridinamael, but you also seem to be making a second mistake in your first paragraph:
we’re automatically biased for or against something, at times for the wrong things and reasons.
You appear to be conflating social/political biases (ie, for or against something) with cognitive biases which directly influence how we think about things. Cognitive biases, to the extent that they can be described as “for or against”, would be “for or against” particular ways of thinking. There is some overlap, which is why I only said “seem to be making a second mistake”, from the rest of your post it looks like you are, but a charitable reading says maybe not.
Your third paragraph describes what looks like a version of the “argument from ignorance” fallacy combined with a “default to God” (a version of the God of the Gaps). I don’t think there really is a general counter-argument to this. George Smith, in one of his essays in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies suggested avoiding getting into arguments like this, unless you are using them to try to convince third party observers.
I agree with moridinamael, but you also seem to be making a second mistake in your first paragraph:
You appear to be conflating social/political biases (ie, for or against something) with cognitive biases which directly influence how we think about things. Cognitive biases, to the extent that they can be described as “for or against”, would be “for or against” particular ways of thinking. There is some overlap, which is why I only said “seem to be making a second mistake”, from the rest of your post it looks like you are, but a charitable reading says maybe not.
Your third paragraph describes what looks like a version of the “argument from ignorance” fallacy combined with a “default to God” (a version of the God of the Gaps). I don’t think there really is a general counter-argument to this. George Smith, in one of his essays in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies suggested avoiding getting into arguments like this, unless you are using them to try to convince third party observers.