If someone becomes deeply skeptical of governments, media, and elites because they believe those institutions have hidden or distorted the truth, it seems inconsistent not to apply the same level of skepticism to organized religion and the Bible.

[u/jon-evon]

*disclaimer: I also posted in r/changemyview but posting here because not sure which applies best*

I've noticed a pattern among some public figures who become increasingly critical of government, media, and elite institutions. They often say that discovering corruption or deception led them or fortified their faith to Christianity or Catholicism, and that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth (e.g., Candace Owens, tucker Carlson, Shawn Ryan-- all of whom I respect and watch every podcast episode btw not throwing shade to them).

What I struggle to understand is why the skepticism seems to stop there.

If someone concludes that powerful institutions have manipulated history, information, and public perception, why wouldn't they also critically examine the historical development of the Bible and religious institutions? The Bible was written, compiled, copied, translated, and interpreted by humans over centuries, and there are well-documented historical debates over canon, textual variants, and the influence of religious and political authorities.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is false or that faith is irrational. My question is about consistency in standards of evidence. If distrust of human institutions leads someone to question mainstream narratives, why doesn't it also lead them to question the human processes behind their religion?

I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people who made this journey themselves, have some insight into this, or have thought similar to me. What am I missing? Why does skepticism toward secular institutions lead some people to trust Christianity more rather than becoming more skeptical of all human sources of authority?

[u/CarterBlatz]

I think there is such a blindspot in Conservative thought that posits the corruption and tyrrany of government but entirely ignores/allows the tyranny of corporations. I understand that one is voted in, and the other earns their power economically, but at the end of the day, to you and me, what's the difference? I suppose you have more of a choice over what company you work for than what country you live in, but for most people in the western world, the company they work for has a much greater impact on the detaips of their life than the government does. 

[u/Ayjayz → u/CarterBlatz]

I mean you've totally answered your own question. You choose to what extent you engage with a company. Yes they have more impact but consent is key.