Conservative evangelicals are caught in a dilemma: their religion is based upon faith and religious experiences, but they live in a culture that (ostensibly, at least) values rationality, science, and reason. What can be done? Generally speaking, they seek to rationalize their beliefs by framing their faith in "reasonable" language. They fail.

Mark H. Creech writes for Agape Press:

I'm not saying we should throw away our intellects. What I am saying, however, is that if you are an honest skeptic as Thomas was, our Lord will provide answers for your inquiries. God gave you a mind as well as a heart, and He is willing to address your intellectual needs. But I suggest what will ultimately convince you of the truth of the Gospel will not be the reasoned arguments, though they may be important stepping stones, but an experience with the living Christ and His love demonstrated in His death for you. Such revolutionizes a life and causes one to fall on their knees before Him, saying, "My Lord and my God."

So, Creech says that he isn't saying that we should throw away our intellects, but he is also saying that our intellects are not ultimately what will lead us to adopting his religion. So what role, really, are our intellects supposed to play again? None, apparently - which is what makes Creech's article such a desperate misrepresentation of skepticism.

You see, skepticism is a deliberate intellectual process designed to help us arrive at justified, rational grounds for adopting a belief. Creech, however, isn't interested in that because for him, Christianity isn't a religion that is adopted based upon justified, rational grounds. Instead, it's something adopted due to an ineffable religious experience - one he can't justify, but which he will try to rationalize while trying to tell people that he's being intellectual after all.

Perhaps this is why Creech starts his article with saying that "nearly everyone understands the difference between a believer and a skeptic" - but there is no inherent difference. A person can believe while still being a skeptic; a person can disbelieve while also being generally gullible. The differences are between belief/disbelief and skepticism/gullibility. If Creech can't figure that out, how can he be trusted to understand the difference between honest and dishonest skepticism?

He can't. He doesn't know what he is talking about - but since when is that news?

Read More:

• Books on Science and Skepticism
• Skepticism & Critical Thinking
• Religious Right
• Evangelicalism