Hmm. So I take it that your critique mainly centers around the idea that most Christians come to their beliefs in epistemically unreliable ways, yes? If so, then I ask you to consider something.

Set aside whatever opposition you have to evangelicals for a moment and suppose that we do live in the world of the evangelical Christian. Wouldn’t we expect people to come to belief in God in exactly this manner? Not everyone is an A-list intellect, and most people don’t have access to a spectacular education. They would never think to go through a process of methodological doubt and determine the probability of the truth. God, if he wants a personal relationship with mankind, would make that relationship accessible to anyone, and not just skeptics. The best way to go about this is what you would call “faith”.

Are they unjustified for believing God in this manner? I can’t see why. If we live in the Christian universe, then God gives the Holy Spirit to supply warrant for their belief. This warrant in turn justifies the belief in question, with no evidence or argument required. Their belief in the Christian religion is properly basic. It is not inferred from other data, but itself forms the foundations of all their other beliefs.

But suppose you offer them a defeater for their belief. You point out some inconsistency in their doctrines or show that one doctrine is not true. Have you defeated their beliefs? Not necessarily. Defeaters have to be taken in the context of everything else we know. Perhaps the defeater is sufficiently strong to show that one doctrine is false. Does the whole system fall apart? Again, not necessarily. Only that particular doctrine would have to be rethought.

Or, if this proper functionalist foundationalism does not appeal to you, you can always consider the way of William James. A person is perfectly rational in believing something if it is (1)A live option, (2)forced (the decision should not be delayed), and (3)momentous (the decision potentially has great consequence). He called this a genuine option.

Christian belief seems to fit all three of these criteria. It seems plausible that God could exist. Given the consequences of delaying faith in Christ, it certainly is a forced decision. Finally, what could be more momentous than choosing between an eternity of heaven or hell? I have trouble seeing how anyone could be charged with irrationality for having faith in Christ, given the nature of the choice.

I don’t think faith works the way you think it does and I don’t think it is irrational, either. You’ll have to do better than proclaim it epistemically irresponsible in order to defeat the epistemological method Christians use to come to belief.