I suspect that the scales in Western Church have tipped at least the argument to me seems scuewed towards belief in a "blind faith" where a belivever has to overcome the miraculous such as the virgin birth, miricles, the resurection etc etc to be a believer.
I find it easy to understand unbelief in terms of the rich young ruler who has kept the law, but will not give away his riches and follow Jesus. Of course, it’s not an issue of evidence or even belief at all; it’s an issue of commitment and sacrifice. If the reason most people were not Christians was because they were not willing to give up things and follow Jesus, then it would make sense to me. Jesus’ demands are huge; his path is narrow.
During our holiday I had a conversation with a Christian who said that he didn't think you could be a Christian without belief in the resurection quoting Paul. My standard reply now is : I don't know and I don't think it matters.
You have to unpack belief; Do you belive the that the message behind the resurection is true? Yes I do, there is truth in the story and new life. Do I belive that they really happened. Truthfully I don't know.
Marcus Borg has a bit to say about this in his book "The heart of Christianity" CH2
Ulitmatley I don't think it matters because I agree with Nathan in the above quote. The Church has more to loose without 'commitment and sacrifice' compared to evidence based belief.
Nathan touched on Bill Gates in his blog, and I couldn't help but think of him. Comparisons between him and the biblical 'Rich young man' are hard not to make. (Mathew 16: 19-30)
I'm sure he would be an 'evidence' type of guy messing around with computers so much of his life. What he gives away is phenominal, and he gives it away in a smart way; you just have to listern to him on TED. I think his comitment is there.
But who can know the Heart....