This is a Paragraph. Click on "Edit Text" or double click on the text box to start editing the content and make sure to add any relevant details or information that you want to share with your visitors.
But our confidence level can fluctuate. Some days my confidence is higher than others. For instance, I may read a good book on the reliability of the Bible and my confidence rises to being fully confident Christianity is true. On other days, the problem of evil may seem so overwhelming that it lowers my confidence that Christianity is true back down to being only inclined to think it is true. Maybe it even lowers it to having no opinion because in those moments the evidence doesn't make Christianity seem more likely true than false.
One could even argue that feeling disinclined to think Christianity is true is still compatible with choosing to commit to it.
However, it seems clear that once a person is of the opinion that Christianity is false, there can be no real commitment possible.
Furthermore, a rational choice is not simply based on evidence. It is also based on consequence. This was Pascal’s point in his famous “Wager” Now, Pascal’s wager only works if there are only two options. If one thinks that there are more than two options then that changes things. For example, if I think the only live choice is between atheism and theism then the Wager makes sense. But if I am of the opinion that Advanta Vedanta Hinduism, Scientology, Islam, and Mormonism are all possible options, then the Wager loses it’s force. However, I suspect for most people wrestling with their Christian faith, the only option is between Christianity and not Christianity.