Theists - I want to know what you think

[Angrboda]

Coherence is a very low bar to meet in terms of justification. And parsimony with respect to assumptions helps, but not a lot. In general, non-naturalistic accounts will contain more assumptions than naturalistic ones. As to due diligence, how does one determine that one has correctly applied this requirement? Beyond the problems associated with perseverance of belief undercutting the notion that this is achieved in practice, it seems much like the role that "true" plays in "justified true belief," in that it is assumed rather than demonstrated. That makes it a rather hollow criterion. Due diligence in some sense can be better attributed to communities than individual's, but one has to ask whether in Christianity, dogmatic belief is being substituted for diligence?