What does it mean to choose to believe in Him? After all, you usually compare belief to knowledge, and you usually say that in factual questions there is no place for command or authority. Just as one cannot choose to believe that the earth is flat, so too one cannot choose to believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, exists or does not exist.

I mean arriving at a conclusion through judgment and deliberation. I already compared judgment to choice (if I remember correctly, in column 35).

It seems to me that your answer mainly sharpens the difficulty. In choosing between good and evil, the principle is understandable: the Holy One, blessed be He, wants us to choose the good, but He gave us freedom of choice that really depends mostly on us.
By contrast, in matters of faith, the “bias” you are talking about does not depend on us but on life circumstances, upbringing, flaws in our thinking, and so on. In other words, reality is such that even if I do what is incumbent on me fully (to do my best to seek the truth), there is a good chance that I will not arrive at what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants.
Shouldn’t we expect the Holy One, blessed be He, to create the world in such a way that if I do what is incumbent on me, I will arrive at His will, at least in most cases?

And values are not dependent on life circumstances? I don’t see a difference. Choice always operates within given circumstances that affect the outcome. The same applies to judgment in philosophical questions.

“In my opinion, the arguments in favor of His existence are very strong, and whoever is not convinced is so because he is biased”…
Apparently, aspiring toward 100%: of the people who heard these arguments and were not raised in a religious education, they were not convinced. Doesn’t that show that probably דווקא the one who grew up with a religious education is the biased one?

What do you suggest?

I think that on this too the Rabbi would sign off: “I suggest everyone relate very critically to what Michi says and not be impressed by the tone and confidence he tries to project.”

Yoyo, absolutely not. I’ve already explained this here more than once. The majority determines nothing whatsoever with respect to truth or falsehood. There are definitely quite a few who are convinced. Many do not listen seriously because they are biased.
By the same token, you could say that secularism is false because whoever was not born secular is not convinced by it. This is the kind of argument that is pointless to engage in. One can discuss the arguments for and against, but not the question of why these people or others are convinced or not.

In my previous comment I didn’t mean the choice of the values I believe in, but the choice between good and evil in a situation where I know what is proper to do. Suppose I need to help my parents with something, but it’s really inconvenient for me right now. I think there would be a consensus that the proper act is to honor one’s parents, and yet I still have a choice whether to do it. I meant that in such a situation the logic from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He, is clear to me: He wants me to do the right thing, but to choose on my own to do it.
However, in a situation of faith—and indeed also in choosing values in situations of doubt—it seems that even if I do what is incumbent on me, in very many cases I will end up far from what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants me to do. And that in itself is puzzling, isn’t it?

I understand the difference between judgment and choice, and that is the subject of the column I referred you to. Still, the logic is similar: the Holy One, blessed be He, apparently wants the adoption of faith through judgment and deliberation, not forced belief. To arrive at faith, and not merely to believe.
By the way, even with regard to values there are disagreements, and it is not always clear to everyone what is right and what is not. That is, there too there is judgment and deliberation, not only choice.