Is it inherently wrong to believe something for which there is no evidence?

[Kingpoleon]

It is a categorical imperative to pursue truth, and to accept evidence regardless of if you like it. Is there a similarly negated imperative? I believe so. To accept claims without evidence or to reject claims with evidence are morally equivalent acts, and I do not recognize an overly distinguished distinction between bad thoughts and bad actions that some consequentialists do.

[Kingpoleon]

How common among Christians today is Kierkegaard’s position that you are a better Christian if you still have faith in spite of a lack of evidence for your belief?

Not overly accepted in light of historical textual criticism, which broadly suggests the Gospels are accurate. Most Christians today believe that the current evidence we have for the Resurrection is precisely what we would expect  if it happened. This is a philosophical position, not precisely a historical one. I am aware of very few mainstream scholars who reject the empty tomb, although Ehrman has said different things about it at different times.

Now if the difference between what evidence we had and what we would expect was different, this leap of faith may be necessitated.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm amused by the idea of someone voting for #1 without really thinking it through and continuing to go about their day  without contemplating the inherent contradiction.

I have, to my knowledge, never met someone whose ideas are entirely consistent. Indeed, I generally value morality over consistency, contra Dule.

[Kingpoleon]

How common among Christians today is Kierkegaard’s position that you are a better Christian if you still have faith in spite of a lack of evidence for your belief?

Not overly accepted in light of historical textual criticism, which broadly suggests the Gospels are accurate. Most Christians today believe that the current evidence we have for the Resurrection is precisely what we would expect  if it happened. This is a philosophical position, not precisely a historical one. I am aware of very few mainstream scholars who reject the empty tomb, although Ehrman has said different things about it at different times.

Now if the difference between what evidence we had and what we would expect was different, this leap of faith may be necessitated.

I should point out here two things: the theological flow which comes from Kierkegaard is significant. Tillich, Barth, the Niebuhr brothers, and Bonhoeffer are fascinating theologians, and indeed Niebuhr is influential in modern Jewish theology. The second is the philosophical flow, specifically Wittgenstein, who was a surprisingly devout Christian.

[Kingpoleon]

     While I agree that it is not accurate to say that Christianity lacks for evidence, I do think there is something to the ultimate idea that one is a better Christian if one believes while not needing evidence for it. As Jesus told His apostle Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I concur. On this, I side with Kierkegaard over William Lane Craig. I think there is a gap between the God of the theologian and the God of the philosopher, primarily that of existence.