The Cognitively Dissonant Mind of the Religious Apologist

From my experience, having observed a lot of religious apologetics, the mind of the religious apologist is frequently prone to cognitive dissonance and close-mindedness with respect to matters of religion. The mind of the religious apologist is a mind prone to reflexively defend a religious position without first thoroughly examining the relevant evidence. In the apologist the tribalistic mentality of man is on full display. The mind of the religious apologist is frequently not so concerned with sincere truth-seeking as it is concerned with defending the values of the tribe. Intellectual tensions are swept under the rug in an effort to conform with the religious tribe. The following video is a good example of how cognitive dissonance and a tendency to close-mindedness can operate in even very educated and smart apologists. Watch what the world-class synthetic chemist and Christian James Tour says in 12:30 - 14:00 of this video. It is cringeworthy. He relates how he tells Nabeel  Qureshi to repent for sincerely thinking about important questions pertaining to the veracity of the Bible; Tour reminds him that "every word in this book is true," and so Qureshi "has some repenting to do." Thereafter they both get on their knees, and Tour leads Qureshi to "repent" for not "taking every word in [the Bible] to be true." At this point I am just facepalming. Imagine grovelling on the floor asking the supremely rational entity to be forgiven for sincerely seeking truth!

What in the world? I say again: what in the world? Apparently the "lesson" that Tour gave Qureshi was to be close-minded. You see, for many a religious apologist, sincerely questioning the veracity of a religious text, by entertaining good arguments on the other side, is unacceptable. Even polymath Christian apologists like William Lane Craig are on record saying that lay Christians should just read Christian apologetic works, and leave works arguing against Christianity to trained individuals like himself (though I forget the link). The implicature is that for Craig, a lay Christian's reading the best works for and against Christianity is to unnecessarily and perilously infect himself with pernicious ideas! You see, in his mind he already has the truth, and so lay Christians should just read what conforms to his opinions about the truth. This is very cringeworthy. If you want to sincerely seek the truth about a certain issue X, then you should read the best arguments for and against X. Don't just read books in favor of Christianity if you are a Christian--read the arguments of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. God gave you a mind, and so he intended you to use it. You have an obligation to follow the evidence wherever it leads--even if it leads you outside the precincts of your tribe. At the end of the day if you do your best to try to get at the truth, then you are not culpable if you get some things wrong. We are all human beings. None of us is infallible. And each one of us probably has some sincerely held justified or unjustified beliefs that are false. Do not be cowed by the religious tribalist who threatens you with eternal perdition, as if he is the gatekeeper of Hell. If you try your best to believe what is true and act in an upright manner, you will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, whether you be an atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, etc. The maximally great being is all-just and all-loving. So don't be afraid of using your mind as best and as honestly as you can. And don't repent to anyone for doing so!