Many people prefer to take on the arguments of biblical critics because they often offer explanations based on modern historical, scientific, and textual methods, which seem more objective and understandable from the standpoint of everyday experience.

Modern Skepticism Versus Sacred Tradition

Many people prefer to take on the arguments of biblical critics because they often offer explanations based on modern historical, scientific, and textual methods, which seem more objective and understandable from the standpoint of everyday experience. At the same time, the arguments of Bible scholars defending the Scriptures frequently rely on traditional understanding, spiritual experience, and a holistic vision that may be seen as less "scientific" or intuitively clear. This creates a certain psychological imbalance: people tend to seek confirmations of their preconceived expectations, precisely because "it itself consists of falsehood, and every falsehood, every lie is more familiar to it," as noted in one of the quotations (source: link txt). Such an internal attitude makes them susceptible to critical interpretations that mirror the atmosphere of skepticism in modern culture.

Moreover, the methods of critical analysis employed by many contemporary theologians have altered the traditional symbolic and holistic approach to the Scriptures. As noted in the material from file link txt, "Protestant theological faculties... have begun to treat the sacred books as ordinary documents of antiquity," which has led to the loss of any sense of their spiritual power. This simplified perception of the texts contributes to the fact that critical views appear more accessible and convincing to the mass audience, while a well-reasoned defense of the Scriptures may prove difficult to grasp without deep immersion in tradition and faith.

Thus, the combination of an individual’s psychological predisposition to accept familiar or seemingly objective explanations and the shift in cultural context has led to the views of biblical critics garnering more trust than a reasoned apologia for the Scriptures.

Supporting citation(s):
"And something like that happens to us too.

Why is it that if someone declares themselves a doctor and healer, they immediately have many patients, whereas if they say: go to the temple, pray to God, and the Lord will heal you, only a few out of tens of thousands respond?

Because it itself consists of falsehood, and every falsehood, every lie, is more familiar to it. That is why, although the Lord spoke to His disciples for three years that He was to be seized in Jerusalem, crucified, and on the third day resurrected—could they possibly forget that?" (source: link txt)

"Protestant theological faculties, which were intended to safeguard Christianity and its foundations through the study of the Bible, have become somewhat jaded. They became engrossed in the critical analysis of the texts of the Old and New Testaments and gradually ceased to feel their spiritual power, beginning to treat the sacred books as ordinary documents of antiquity, employing techniques of 19th-century positivism." (source: link txt)