In her life, classical theist, like anybody else, has to choose from the equally important matters, which have different degrees of rational support. She has to choose between supporting and opposing opinions concerning the nature, causes and significance of a certain position, in her case the commitment to God. There is no empirically gained evidence for the truth or falsity of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being who is responsible for bringing the universe into existence. Thus, there is no other support for her faith than thoughts about pros and cons in her position occurring during numerous debates concerning the nature of divine forces.
Being committed to God, it is argued, makes it irrational and, in fact impossible, for a classical theist to be forever changing her position because she has to keep her stance long enough to test her convictions. It is also necessary for her to be entrusted in her pose in order to make worthwhile changes in the world and to develop a consistent, or constant, character. On the basis of the above premises it is concluded that there is need for a deliberate commitment (a robust faith).
Considering the point for the irrationality and impossibility of being forever changing one’s position, it reasonable to say that, in general, people require time to examine their convictions. Time does not have any intrinsic value; however, time allows one get a basis for changing her position. One may argue that evidence sufficient for someone to change her stance can be gained in extremely short time. However, the matter is that even though the evidence may seem to be sufficient, it is irrational for someone to rely on it as soon as she gets this evidence. A person must evaluate the evidence in respect to her commitment. It is irrational for a committed theist to give up her faith in perfectly good and omnipotent God on the basis of fact that her brother was killed by an accident. It is quite possible that it was not an accident for God: her brother was a rapist. So, it would be appropriate for omniscient and morally perfect God to punish the rapist. Hence, it is rational to hold that there has to be a certain period of time to think about pros and cons of one’s position. The stronger commitment the more time is required for a counter opinion to be considered as evidential.
Moreover, it is rational for a classical theist to be committed to her stand long enough to be able to bring about worthwhile changes in the world. It is virtually impossible to make noticeable changes in the world without a commitment. Let me give you an example of John who is a classical theist today. He has an idea that God wants him to convince people in immorality of abortion; realization of this idea preoccupies him for today. In the end of the busy day, John meets his friend who just arrived from the space expedition. This friend tells John that he and his colleagues travelled for nine months across the universe and saw no God. On the basis on new evidence, John is convinced that there is no God, his commitment about immorality of abortion was a delusion, and the purpose of his life is to defend the women’s choice in the issue of abortions. On the basis of given information about the strength of John’s convictions, we can see how unlikely it is for him to follow his convictions long enough to bring about the practical changes in the world. This example shows that it is not possible to make worthwhile changes in the world if one does not have a more or less persistent faith.
Finally, it is argued that in order to develop a consistent, or constant character it would be sensible for a classical theist, like for anybody else, to keep a certain view for a while because the idea of “constant character” implies following constant principles. Why should she wish to develop a constant character? In the first place, one should behave towards other people in a way she would prefer other people behaving towards her; if she wants to rely on other people, she ought to be reliable person. Most relations and mere communication in everyday life depends on a certain degree of perseverance. In general, although it is desirable for one to have a stability in her views and commitments, the holding a constant character does not imply keeping a robust faith. This point may be exemplified by considering an agnostic, who does not have any faith or deliberate commitment in the issue of God’s existence; she is sceptical about God. The agnostic is uncomfortable with her position; may be she would be happy to believe in God or to have enough evidence against His existence. It would be true for many agnostics to say that they prefer not to be agnostics. Even though the agnostic does not have ant deliberate commitment concerning the issue of God (she may well be committed to “other-than-this” view), she can have a constant character. So, for agnostics, there is no connection between “faith” and “a constant character”. However, talking of classical theists, it would be insensible to suppose that in order to have faith, she does not have to follow constant principles because, by definition, a classical theist is a person who follows, or indeed is committed to a certain basic set of beliefs, or principles. Therefore, in order to have a constant character, a theist has to keep a robust faith; otherwise, she would not be called a classical theist.
In summary, given the brief analysis of the rationality of persistent theistic faith by consider such practical issues as evaluation of evidence, effecting worthwhile changes in the world, and developing a constant character, it is just to conclude that it is rational for a classical theist to have a robust faith in God even if there are evidences against her faith.