Axiomatically

Bertrand Russell alledgedly said

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

Would that match your knowledge of the Gospels?

The statement is essentially correct. What goes unsaid in that quote is that the purpose of the Gospels was never to glorify human intelligence. But it does not follow that Christianity is therefore a faith unsupported by intelligence. Nor that intelligent people can't possibly believe in Jesus Christ.

However, I believe it is true that with intelligence often comes pride. Not always, but often. And a prideful heart isn't generally inclined to accept the message of the Gospels.

But this is thinking. And thinking can get one into trouble.

It can, I agree. Overthinking surely can. Does it matter on what one thinks?

By a circuitous route we have come straight back to superposition of states, where two seemingly conflicting things can both be true simultaneously -- and by induction we arrive once more at the struggle of how to define truth.

Yep, and I won't run down that rabbit hole again. I agree that it's nearly impossible define truth. What I've always maintained is that there does exist a singular objective truth, which is God himself. But I've always held that proposition can't itself be proven.

Mathematics (and chess too) is based on a set of rules (axioms) and within those axioms you can be sure that it's X or Y.

But only by virtue of definition, right? A mathematician may stipulate an axiom that defined only X and Y. But that "reality" only exists within the realm of that definition. Another mathematician may stipulate X, Y and Z. It too only exists within the realm of that definition. Can it be said that the first axiom is mutually exclusive of the second? Or that two are simply different, but not contradictory.