But if it’s rooted in historical fact, rather than cultural hegemony and parents passing on their belief systems to their children, then studying history would naturally lead people to become overwhelmingly Christian. Reality does not reflect that.
Because people don’t want to think that there is a judge and change their lives. By the same logic, if it’s fake, then why have people studied it and become Christian?
You have faith in your car based on the knowledge that it’ll get you to your destination
That’s a linguistic bait-and-switch. Your example has nothing to do with religious faith as a basis for conviction.
I am convicted in my faith by the evidence
You’re not convincing anyone by misusing words.
Here, let me demonstrate: I have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist. My evidence is faith.
My evidence isn’t faith. My faith is based in historical fact.
So why are historians not generally Christian?
Because a lot of people these days aren’t generally Christian.
But if it’s rooted in historical fact, rather than cultural hegemony and parents passing on their belief systems to their children, then studying history would naturally lead people to become overwhelmingly Christian. Reality does not reflect that.
Because people don’t want to think that there is a judge and change their lives. By the same logic, if it’s fake, then why have people studied it and become Christian?