No, it is not contingent on the historical evidence, although I find the historical evidence very persuasive.

I am convinced that Christianity better accords with the existence of God. It doesn't make sense to me that, provided God exists, he would've created us and never give us any special revelation whatsoever. And the Christian narrative is (obviously) consistent with God revealing Himself to us, but more than that, it includes theidea that God would've made Himself human like us, to share life with us, share our suffering by our side, taking our pain and suffering and frustrations all upon Himself in both a heroic and a utterly compassionate manner. I find that, independently of historical evidence, this picture of God is a very plausible one. It is of course hard to speculate much about such an issue, but I think it is in accordance with what I would *expect* from God, given the state of our world. So I think the very idea of the Incarnation raises the probability of the Christian religion.

Likewise, I think the Christian trinitarian understanding of God's love is also very reasonable. And there is also the fact that Christianity preaches the resurrection of the flesh, which is precisely the sort of immortality humans would need the most, given hylemorphic dualism (which I am conviced of).

So I think Christianity has some objective, philosophical arguments in its favor, independent from the historical evidence.

Secondly, there isn't just the Resurrection of Christ. There is also the witness of many Christian saints, miracles and religious experiences. I don't think St Joan of Arc's life can be given a satisfactory natural explanation, esp. not given the background knowledge of theism. The extraordinary lives of people such as St. Gemma Galgani, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Padre Pio, and many others, significantly raises the probability of Christianity being true.

When I combine everything, I find Christianity to be very plausible.

Last edited by Miguel (3/28/2018 4:25 pm)

In a sense it must be contingent on the historical evidence. For suppose there were no​ historical evidence for Christianity. Then it would not even be something in which one could place one's faith.

​That is not to say, though, that the role of historical evidence in faith is that of premises which, according to some​ canon of inference, justify what is believed.

1. There is no History, there are histories about History. 2. We lack any means of proving whether this or that entity is God; no falsification, no verification would work on such an object, had He kindly presented Himself for all our experimentation. 3. We've got the answers the ancients could not imagine—the benevolent aliens possessing the next-next-next level technology would have performed all the miracles of the Christianity effortlessly in order to impose a new moral code on humanity. And there is a nonzero possibility that all the world, even we here and now, is only a simulation, a giant software running on the computational power of the aforementioned aliens. 4. If you like Coca-Cola, it is non sequitur that Pepsi is bad. Saints? Miracles? C'mon, check Hinduism for that stuff for starters. Saints + miracles are flesh and blood of any religion, there is none without them. 5. So, it seems that fideism is inevitable. That makes sense—after all it gives hope at least. If it helps you make it through the day, does it really matter whether it's true or not? Think utilitarian-wise. 

Personally, there's practical reasons in it. When you feel a compulsive urge to believe that Christianity is true, because it should be, would't be immoral to not follow what your own nature dictate yourself?

I don't think that faith is a problem if it doesn't go against rationnality, but only beyond. It would be a virtue, rather than a vice in that case

I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life. How dreadfully has it tormented me (and torments me even now) this longing for faith, which is all the stronger for the proofs I have against it. And yet God gives me sometimes moments of perfect peace; in such moments I love and believe that I am loved; in such moments I have formulated my creed, wherein all is clear and holy to me. This creed is extremely simple; here it is: I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly, and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one. I would even say more: If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky