As Josh Reeves makes clear, the question is not easy to answer. He offers several principles, but since adhering to these can have a profound effect on what a person believes I can’t help but ask on what basis we are supposed to subscribe to those principles. Presumably, on the basis of their self-evident reasonableness. But what is self-evidently reasonable to some believers is not to others, which is why the question about expert opinion comes up in the first place.
Reeves lays down a red line when he says that our framework for belief is the death and resurrection of Jesus. Does that mean that faith in Jesus’s death and resurrection occurs entirely outside of–and stands above–any expert opinion that might seem to bear on it? We have the expert opinion of textual scholars (experts) about the reliability of the transmission of New Testament documents. Is that irrelevant to belief? There are experts in field of psychology, history of religion, and cultural anthropology who can provide information on how often and under what circumstances people believe they have seen and interacted with persons–especially beloved and charismatic figures–who have previously died. Is this information, mediated by experts, worth the attention of persons who are weighing the gospel? If not, why not? What about the sources and explanations of miracle stories more generally, again according to the experts?
What about the opinions of psychologists and ethicists on human sexuality and its expressions? Should the Bible be interpreted with these opinions in mind? Should the Bible’s credibility be weighed in accordance with these opinions? Again, if not, why not?
I find the that the primary question breeds others that are equally troublesome. However, I encounter even worse problems with either abandoning belief or adopting anti-scientific Christian fundamentalism.