Like Rev. John A. Giurin, and also a minister and lover of science, tech, and reason, I came to this article because of Medium’s recommendation. I agree that it is thoughtful and does show a solid understanding of Christianity in many respects. One quibble is that when you use the word “Christian” you seem to have a particular kind of Christian in mind — evangelical, conservative/fundamentalist — rather than the entirety of the tradition.

I say this as a result of your presentation of the canonical gospels. Implicit in your argument is that the gospels—or any scripture—were ever intended to be taken absolutely literally. I’m interested in this because it seems that a lot of atheists and fundamentalists tend to read the scripture in the same way: as a set of factual claims that are either true or false rather than as parabolic stories or narrative metaphors that are meant to give words to an ineffable human experience. There are many Christians who are not troubled by inconsistencies in narrative details because the details are a reflection on faith not the origins of it.

As you correctly point out, the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death therefore it is highly unlikely they are eyewitness accounts. However, their late composition also demonstrates something else: that Christianity had existed as a growing religious community for nearly four decades before any gospel was published. What that means is that the gospels did not produce Christian faith; Christian faith produced the gospels. They were reflections that were provided to people who already believed.

So, one suggestion might be to encourage your readers to consider that there are some Christians who actually revel in the inconsistent mess that is our scriptural tradition because we don’t see it as proof of the existence of God. Rather we see it as a diverse, messy, human effort to grapple with questions of meaning and purpose and to give voice to an experience of the ineffable.