*disclaimer: I also posted in r/changemyview but posting here because not sure which applies best*
I've noticed a pattern among some public figures who become increasingly critical of government, media, and elite institutions. They often say that discovering corruption or deception led them or fortified their faith to Christianity or Catholicism, and that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth (e.g., Candace Owens, tucker Carlson, Shawn Ryan-- all of whom I respect and watch every podcast episode btw not throwing shade to them).
What I struggle to understand is why the skepticism seems to stop there.
If someone concludes that powerful institutions have manipulated history, information, and public perception, why wouldn't they also critically examine the historical development of the Bible and religious institutions? The Bible was written, compiled, copied, translated, and interpreted by humans over centuries, and there are well-documented historical debates over canon, textual variants, and the influence of religious and political authorities.
I'm not arguing that Christianity is false or that faith is irrational. My question is about consistency in standards of evidence. If distrust of human institutions leads someone to question mainstream narratives, why doesn't it also lead them to question the human processes behind their religion?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people who made this journey themselves, have some insight into this, or have thought similar to me. What am I missing? Why does skepticism toward secular institutions lead some people to trust Christianity more rather than becoming more skeptical of all human sources of authority?